Elaine: Museums should acquire and display the best examples of artworks from each artistic period and genre, even if some of these works are not recognized by experts as masterpieces.
Frederick: We have to acquire the works of the masters to ensure the preservation of the greatest artworks.
A: Neither of them appear to comment on what experts recognize as masterpieces.
B: Elaine says yes. Frederick doesn't care about whether we represent all genres, so he doesn't seem to think we should. He just cares about the stars.
C: They agree on this.
D: Elaine just says, let's get art from all periods and genres, never commenting on what to do if something is too expensive. Frederick says no matter what we should get the works of masters. So while Frederick may disagree with this claim, we don't know what Elaine's line of reasoning would be here. (We don't know conclusively about Frederick either, he may be down for this if we're talking unusual masterpieces vs. super pricy ones, etc).
E: Neither of them appear to comment on what experts recognize as masterpieces.
Why E doesn't resolve: We're trying to figure out why antilock brakes, supposedly "safer," still lead people to have more accidents than those with regular brakes.
Accidents "of the most serious nature" taking place on highways doesn't tell us that those with antilock brakes drive mostly on highways and highways have more accidents/the probability is higher on the highway. Just knowing that the "most serious" ones happen on highways doesn't tell us whether antilock brake-drivers or regular brake-drivers get into more highway accidents. It does tell us that antilock brakes probably wouldn't help in a highway accident, but unlike (C), it doesn't point to a difference between the two types of brakes or give us a reason that antilock brakes may be equally or less effective as the regular brakes.
Why C does: If the antilock brakes are designed to make driving safer, but they are expensive to maintain, some people may not be getting them maintained, so then they aren't effective. Even if people are getting them maintained, when they are maintained, they are just as effective as the regular brakes, so it's less of a surprise that there are more accidents -- this is essentially telling us that they aren't really making driving safer, it's just about the same. Yes, we still need more information as to why there are more accidents, but it helps lessen the disparity.
Conclusion: If census participation became voluntary, polls designed to discover the opinions of the national population would have less accurate results.
Support: When opinion researchers need a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics of the national population, they choose their sample on the basis of national census data. Not everyone participates in the national census, despite its being mandatory. If, however, census participation became voluntary, as some have proposed, the participation rate would be much lower.
Gaps: How do we know that our data would change? What if a lot of the same group with the same characteristics still partakes when it is voluntary (even if participation is lessened)? What if, even with a lowered participation rate, somehow the group carved out is more representative of the population?
A. This does not matter. Our argument is localized to what would happen if national census data went from mandatory -> voluntary.
B. Negated, this is that "not few" would agree to participate. So more than a few would still participate out of the group of those who do not participate as is. This doesn't tell us enough to assume that the results would be less accurate.
C. If this weren't true, then there would be no reason to think that the data would be less accurate. If the group shares the same characteristics, then the data should reasonably stay similar to how it is now.
D. This is a descriptive fact about these groups, but it doesn't tell us anything about how they would behave under a voluntary system.
E. We don't know what would be true if this was true vs. not. So is the data less accurate when the percentage doesn't change? Is it more accurate? And even if the percentage does change significantly, our premises say that it is still a lowered percentage, and the results are still less accurate.
@seanseaver Hey! I think we may find the support here: "Between the extremes of simple predictability and chaos there can arise behavior that is partly linear and partly chaotic. …The emerging science of complexity theory offers promise of explaining the behavior of systems that are on the edge of chaos, in the sense that they retain a degree of order while flirting with chaotic nonlinearity."
And perhaps at the start, too -- "But popular reports that physicists are close to arriving at a "theory of everything" are misleading: such a theory would still be limited to interpreting fundamental interactions and explaining why subatomic particles have the mass, charge, and other characteristics that they do. It would explain "everything" only in the sense that everything is made of particles. It could not predict the behavior of complicated systems like thunderstorms or human beings." So the theory introduced at the start would overlook certain things, and "complexity theory" does a better job
A way to speed-run this, as difficult as it was:
A. Passage says, "the musical films of the 1930s are anomalous in that they interrupt narrative to present musical performances only tangentially related to the plot." So Berkeley's films fall into this larger camp of musicals that have random performance sequences.
B. Mentioned in "technical elements of filmmaking—camera movement, lighting, editing, and sound," we know nothing else.
C. We only know about musicals, comedies, and melodramas, "two other staples," we don't know if those are all the popular ones, etc. We can only conclude from these.
D. Initially I thought, well, Berkeley thinks this....but no, Berkeley thinks they were primed for the musical through theater, so that's different. Ctrl +F for "conventions" shows this in the passage: "it would be worthwhile for scholars like Bordwell to first consider how viewers process cinematic images and eventually come to accept them as conventions before generalizing about the realism of certain film styles." So the author seems to think that viewers eventually come to accept them over time (which we can say, implicitly, "through repeated exposure").
E. We can't say anything about "most," but reasonably this seems anti-supported.
Is the latter half of (C), "makes a suggestion for modifying the interpretation," further incorrect because the author doesn't tell us how to modify the interpretation but rather gives thoughts on something that Bordwell/other scholars should do ?
@Zanderantochow I also sometimes still find myself taking too much time, so that's super relatable. Reading "LSAT-style" articles on The Economist and dense literature helped me speed up a bit, as well as doing RC drills completely untimed. "Go slow to go fast," as they say. For reviewing the wrong answers, something that has helped is the 7Sage podcast and others saying that the right answer is always in the passage, so for the ones I get wrong, I try to find the "proof" that was used to consider that one the correct AC. The 7sage curriculum should also help with some more generalizable skills (like what each question type generally needs in the answer choice for it to be correct).
You got this!
Conclusion: There is a special role for those outside the university context to render political theory into accessible, clear language.
Support: The dissemination of political theories is in principle able to cause change in existing social structures. However, all political theories are formulated in the educationally privileged setting of the university, leading to convoluted language that is alienating to many individuals outside academia who would be important agents of change.
Gaps: Why do they have to do that work themselves?
A: This doesn't tell us why it is their responsibility to change the language.
B: This doesn't tell us why those outside of academic settings must change the language.
C: This doesn't tell us why it is their responsibility to change the language. Negating and saying they are "*not* better left out" doesn't help make our conclusion make sense.
D: This doesn't tell us why it is their responsibility to change the language.
E: If we negate this, and say that those within the academic settings are willing to write straightforwardly, then there exists no need to translate the language into something more clear. We needed it to be true somehow that there was a reason for those outside the university to make the language straightforward, and this tells us the reason: the academics aren't going to make it straightforward, so!
@Zanderantochow Hey! I feel the frustration as RC was and always has been an area where the q's can slip by me, and the majority of resources concentrate mostly on LR. You will get there!!! Some things that helped on my end:
Spending the majority of my time in the passage, reading line by line. I used to feel the urge to read quickly (sometimes still do) and that would lead to foggy brain when hitting the questions. Spend the time you need to understand the passage, and then the questions will come faster/easier.
Sometimes slowing it down further and asking yourself what the line you just read means. I used to have moments thinking, "Uhhh...okay?" while reading -- stop yourself when that happens! Don't let yourself keep reading without understanding what you've just read, as that feeling of confusion will compound, and then the anxiety will take over when you get to the questions too, and it will lead to a whole kerfuffle of stress.
At least on my end, nerves play a big part in my performance, so making sure I'm level-headed as if I'm about to read a novel I chose myself and have a big mug of tea and a blanket, as opposed to going in with intensity. Stillness has helped me pay better attention to minutiae that they might ask about.
The 7Sage RC curriculum was really helpful, as question type strategy is boiled down very simply for what you need each q type's correct answer to do. It took me way longer than it should have to go through the curriculum.
Earlier on in my studying I found the program RC Hero to be helpful as well. 7Sage's curriculum is a lot simpler/more straightforward to memorize, though.
Changing the passage order can help. Maybe doing the ones that interest you the most first or you find the subject matter easier to parse to try to get more questions correct; maybe doing the longer ones first to knock them out of the park and then when you're crunched for time you luckily only have the shorter ones left.
I hope any of this was helpful, or if there are particular questions or problem areas I can give advice for, I will do my best! Good luck!!!
Statement: "If this sacrifice will loose the winds" = if what Artemis says is true about the sacrifice
"It is permitted to desire it fervently" = it's okay that I do it, then
A. "Evade battle" is incorrect.
B. He is saying it is permissible to desire the sacrifice, not victory.
C. If what she says is true....then I can desire it. Yes, this maps on!
D. Since I've determined this sacrifice will give me victory...I will do it. But the passage demonstrates Artemis telling Agamemnon that the sacrifice will move the winds, this is not something he comes to on his own.
E. The passage demonstrates Artemis telling Agamemnon that the sacrifice will move the winds, this is not something he comes to on his own.
Why A:
"like many other African American dances, it retained features characteristic of African dance forms, such as gliding steps and an emphasis on improvisation."
Why not C:
"added certain elements from European dances," this is not other North American dance forms -- "cakewalk developed into a high-kicking walk performed by a procession of couples" presumably European still
the author mentions "African American dances" (see above) but does so in order to mention their retainment of "African" dance forms; we don't know anything about those dances and whether they were influenced by the cakewalk
Author's position: Studio executives, rather than writers/directors/producers, are now making more decisions re: subj. matter and actors. This has been spoken about as an obsession with profit...and now, said profit comes from getting people to want to see the movie, as opposed to engaging the audience.
A. "Many" doesn't tell us anything. This number could definitely be small enough that it doesn't change the author's position at all.
B. Initially attractive, but how they "achieved their positions" says nothing about the decisions they currently make. Many people, for example, enter law school wanting to do good for the world, and then go in-house at an evil corporation (womp, womp).
C. Having a say /= making the final choices, and "most" also doesn't tell us enough here. Whether they have a say or not doesn't particularly impact the scenario the author is describing, it could still be occurring.
D, correct. Okay...so even if these executives are making their decisions based on profits, said decisions also help engage the audience. So then perhaps the author's argument here is faulty.
E. This doesn't affect the author's argument here. If anything it is a descriptive fact about what the producers may be taking into consideration?
Primary purpose pre-phrase: Demonstrate to the reader why lawyers should go beyond just stating assisting facts and instead be earnest in their assessment of a client's guilt.
A. "Ethical dilemmas in the profession" seems a bit too broad, as well as their "role" generally. The passage is a lot more localized than this. The author also takes an opinion beyond "show" X.
B. Correct. First half, "argue," yes, the author is trying to make a point here, and is arguing against what some scholars believe, saying their position "overlooks the fact that the defense lawyer's obligation is twofold." This is wordy, but what it says is essentially, "a lawyer's duty to the court and society doesn't conflict with also doing the right thing for the client / duties to the client."
C. The author is taking a stance and commenting on why this should be an important issue.
D. This is mentioned near the end, that a lawyer must consider whether they want to take on a case, but the passage doesn't enumerate issues and this isn't the primary purpose. Reminder: primary purpose of PASSAGE, is this what the author wants to communicate to the reader, is this the take-away?
E. This appears too broad. The author isn't talking about the practice of law as a whole or the values of democratic societies.
Hi! I'm wondering if anyone has any advice for being more consistently in the -0 to -2 range on RC sections. I find myself still getting -3 to -5 sometimes and this is something I really want to fix before my next exam, especially since I think hard RC passages won against me in previous times.
Thank you guys so much!!!
@Marcus91 Same range and goals as you so always down to talk ab questions we missed!
How I went through this if it helps anyone -
Analysis: Country taking territory with great wealth (benefit). Risk of failure but it's not that serious.
A, correct: Traditional belief: "choose a risky venture over a sure thing only when the expected measurable value of the outcome is sufficiently high to compensate the decision maker for taking the risk." Here, the country at hand sees the benefit as being worth the risk, so presumably this applies.
B: We can infer from the last paragraph that the country who had territory seized would probably care more than the aggressor nation (see passage support).
C: This scenario doesn't seem to apply here, since the risks were relatively mild. Regardless, the new research concerns perceived losses, and we don't know what those may be here. We are told that the risk of failure involved "moderate but easily tolerable harm in the long run."
D: What else may it be motivated by? We don't know. Seems like it could fall into cost/benefit -- costs not that bad, benefits good, full speed ahead.
E: It would be difficult to come to this conclusion - we don't know. This could be true but it also could not.
"Ellison received two related criticisms: that his allegiance to the concerns of the individual prevented him from directing his art more toward the political action that critics believed was demanded by his era's social and political state of affairs; and that his indulging in European fictional modes lessened his contribution to the development of a distinctly African American novelistic style."
A: Positive effect is in better alignment with a call for political action. The critics wanted to see Ellison direct his work toward change, implied, betterment.
Not B: A historical record of plight wouldn't be seen as political action, as it wouldn't be changing the situation, just writing it. Writing about history further cannot be said to be the same thing as development of a novelistic style, as it is a matter of subject.
Facts given: A high-calorie diet providing adequate fats was a crucial requirement for the evolution of the anatomically modern human brain. This process began among our early human ancestors. Food resources that could support such a diet were most abundant and reliable in the shore environments that were available to early humans. Nevertheless, the human brain's evolution took place almost exclusively in savanna and woodland areas.
Potential gaps: They didn't have a way of obtaining the food resources? There wasn't a way to process the fats obtained from the food resources?
A: A comparison to today does not matter, we're looking at this in comparison to the shore environments.
B: A comparison to today does not matter, we're looking at this in comparison to the shore environments.
C: A comparison to today does not matter, we're looking at this in comparison to the shore environments.
D: To connect exploring the archaeology to looking for food would require us to make too many presuppositions. They likely still had the same access to the food resources.
E: We are told, "A high-calorie diet providing adequate fats was a crucial requirement ," and this tells us that the early humans weren't holding on to many calories, so perhaps the woodland-dwelling humans had a more high-calorie diet providing the adequate fats. Despite access to this, the early humans did not get the benefit because of this caloric expenditure.
Background: Many economists claim that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another.
Conclusion: These economists overestimate the degree to which people are motivated by money in their job choices.
Support: In many surveys, most people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job.
Gaps: Even if it isn't the most desirable feature, couldn't people still be motivated by money?
A: This does not weaken the argument.
B: This puts the high-wage jobs on the same playing field as the low-wage jobs by eliminating other factors, but this doesn't tell us that if the other aspects of the job were not identical, that those factors wouldn't be driving the decision (so high wages/money could still be overestimated in importance, just this particular scenario leads people to choose the money).
C: This gives us a reason why people may not be listing salary as the most desirable, but weakens the fact that they are not motivated by money. They may instead be focused on the other financial benefits, and thus still motivated by money, and thus our conclusion (that that motivation is overestimated) is weakened.
D: This does not weaken the argument.
E: This does not weaken the argument.
Conclusion: Once the company has moved, most Acme employees will have a commute of more than 30 minutes.
Support: Most Acme employees cannot afford housing within a 30-minute commute of Ocean View.
A: This is irrelevant to the argument being made.
B: This is irrelevant to the argument being made.
C: This is irrelevant to the argument being made.
D: Whether their current commute is less than 30 minutes doesn't tell us if they'll move or not, etc. This requires too many assumptions. We can think, their commute right now is less than 30, and they won't move from where they live right now because they can't afford to, so their move will be over 30. But this doesn't have to be true. Say they have an over 30 minute commute right now anyways. We can still make the argument that their commute will stay at more than 30 because they can't afford to move. We aren't required to think their commute is presently less to make the argument that it will be at over 30 for most of them. Our reasoning is based on their finances, also.
E: If the move was accompanied by a significant pay raise, then we may not be able to use the support that they cannot afford the housing. Maybe now they can, and they'll move there, and their commute won't be over 30 minutes.
A. None of this is mentioned in the passage.
B. This is a fact of the passage, but the author is more so discussing them to demonstrate why they were important to study regardless of the little written evidence.
C. Yes. Before the paragraph begins, the author says, "...because a full study of a culture's historical relationship to its land cannot confine itself to a narrow record of experience, these historiographers have begun to recognize the value of other kinds of evidence, such as the actions of Asian settlers. .... As a case in point, the role of Chinese settlers in expanding agriculture throughout the Pacific Coast territory is integral to the history of the region." So the settlers are brought up as the example for a different, expansive view (unique, in contrast with "narrow record").
D. The point of contention, or rather new discovery, was using different types of sources. The history of settlement was never up for debate.
E. The author never says that the historical record provided by their actions is different / inconsistent from that gleaned from traditional (primary) sources. The historical record provided by their actions instead provides a fuller picture. I incorrectly thought this AC to be saying... "to claim the historical record provided by their actions cannot be assessed by traditional sources," but that is not at all what it is saying. Let the words speak for themselves :)
Doctor's conclusion: Since these individuals with bulging/slipped disks didn't feel pain, there's no way that bulging/slipped disks lead to pain in those who experience pain.
Support: Medical researchers recently examined a large group of individuals who said that they had never experienced serious back pain. Half of the members of the group turned out to have bulging or slipped disks in their spines.
Gaps: Just because in some instances the bulging disks didn't lead to pain, that doesn't mean that bulging disks are never the source of pain.
A: "Bulging disks don't have to exist for pain but may nonetheless cause pain." The doctor isn't failing to consider this, if anything more like the opposite, saying that bulging disks don't cause pain.
B: "Bulging disks may not be sufficient to produce pain but can still be partly responsible for pain in some instances." Right. The doctor discounts the possibility that bulging disks can contribute to pain, just because some peoples' having a bulging disk didn't immediately lead to (weren't sufficient for) pain.
C: "Pain occurring in the absence of bulging disks might not occur when you have a bulging disk." But we don't talk about pain in the absence of bulging disks. Even if we tried to map it onto the stimulus as "Having a bulging disk with the absence of pain....might not occur when you do have pain" it still wouldn't follow. "Having a bulging disk and not feeling pain ...you might not have a bulging disk when you do feel pain"? This isn't what's happening. It's hard to map this on for a reason - it doesn't work.
D: The doctor doesn't discuss "half a sample," etc.
E: A failure to consider likelihood is not the flaw here. "Bulging disks not bringing about pain may nonetheless be more likely when there is pain than when there's not pain" .... Not accurate.
We want to confirm that it was not formed from a piece of the Earth. There are two ways that it forms from the Earth:
From the outer shell
A mass from inside Earth was dislodged
We know the materials in the moon are different from the outer shell. (B) confirms they are different from the inside of the Earth as well, and thus, the materials differ from Earth holistically.
A) This doesn't tell us about the composition of Earth's moon.
C) This if anything makes it more likely that the moon was composed through one of the 2 ways that involve Earth's materials.
D) This if anything makes it more likely that the moon was composed through method 2, "a comet or meteoroid, struck the planet so violently that it dislodged a mass of material from inside the planet."
E) This doesn't tell us about the composition of Earth's moon.
A. Does not address whether it would disappear with age or not.
B. Does not address whether it would disappear with age or not.
C. These children are different than the group we're looking at ("children who had not slept with night-lights as infants").
D. This shows that we're taking the premises as truth -- "the later studies found no correlation between night-lights and nearsightedness." But if (D) comes into play, and says those later studies aren't valid enough to draw conclusions from, we can't make this claim.
E. We don't know anything here about the comparison between those who slept with night-lights as infants and those who didn't. What if several more were not nearsighted?