I don't like this question. The authors conclude that no wealthy person should be on the committee because some are criminals and thus unethical. It generalizes, but is it really flawed? If we want to make sure that there are no unethical people, eliminating any possibility of that follows.

I picked (C) after talking myself out of (E) because I thought that it attacked the assumption that criminal actions → unethical actions. For instance, perhaps the wealthy individuals were convicted of jaywalking while helping grandmothers cross the street. Thus they could be criminals, but not unethical.

I see that perimeter lights and cost of energy between towns is listed as experimental. I recognize those from my two LR sections, so I think they're legit.

@ said:

@ said:

I'll remember more as I think about it but at very least:

LR1 - moose and deer; modern usages of land measurement

LR2 - can’t remember

LR3 - bike sharing; meteorologists’ forecasts

RC1 - native language preservation; judges’ honesty; Freud/Marx; can’t remember the other

I thought the RC was unusually difficult, and L1 (for me) was harder than the other two. Not sure which was experimental.

I definitely did not have bike sharing /meteorologist LR.

It amazes me how you can remember all of that !!

I had two LR sections. Don't remember bike sharing or forecasts.

@ said:

I had LR, LG, LR, (break) LR, RC

Can anyone confirm which LR was the expert. one? (My last LR section had [removed] question as the last question)

Also, for RC the judges was the real one and for games the one with students with advisors was real.

That last LR was legit.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

What experimental did you guys have? @ @

Reading comp. LR was legit.

Did you get one about assigning students to advisors?

For LG, yes.

So these were your four for LG?

-Types of Food/Specials in Different Restaurants

-Ordering Students to Advisors

-Matching Students to Assignments

-Investigators/Suspects

Correct.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

What experimental did you guys have? @ @

Reading comp. LR was legit.

Did you get one about assigning students to advisors?

For LG, yes.

@ said:

What experimental did you guys have? @ @

Reading comp. LR was legit.

Legit LG: sequencing foods, students to projects, investigators to suspects.

LR: 25 and 26 questions - [removed]

Analogies rely on their similarity. We know that engineering is uniquely suited to analyzing machines because it, unlike physics and chemistry, can express the notion of purpose.

Now, if physiology is similar in that it is specially suited to analyzing an organism (i.e. a machine), then it should have that special characteristic that makes it analogous to engineering (the notion of purposes)

Negating (C) makes it clear: The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge the notion of success has NO analog in organisms. If this were the case, the analogy would fall apart.

Not sure if that is the textbook approach, but it was how I approached it.

@ said:

@ said:

The core curriculum has material from PT 38, so that may skew scores slightly.

It does not. CC has materials from PTs 1-35. The rest are reserved for clean copies.

I stand corrected. Must have been used in other materials I worked through.

The core curriculum has material from PT 38, so that may skew scores slightly.