@Chebebe Thank you!!!!

@LuzSantos7732 Thanks so much!

@haena Hey, thanks so much!!! My fingers are crossed. I really appreciate all of your advice and any general thoughts / tips on what it's like in person.

@02kimask This is good to hear, thank you!

@Josephine Thank you so much!

Hi! What did you do the days before and day of? Did you sleep a lot?

@sherryyudu In this same boat a year later I fear, so also eager to hear what people may say!!

Q-type: Main point

Pre-phrase: Certain misgivings with the Pin Factory theory have recently been remedied.

A: No, in fact anti-supported. They thought they were decreasing and struggled to believe the Pin Factory theory.

B: This ignores the passage's emphasis on the Pin Factory theory, too.

C: "Even more rigorously" is not stated.

D: The passage does not discuss Smith to this extent and it is not about him, the common good, etc.

E: Correct. This accurately captures how "increasing returns to scale" (Pin Factory) have only recently come into the foray. Common in many industries is supported by "obviously characterized many enterprises."

Q-type: Principle

A: Passage A discusses how arts also provide social capital; Passage B is silent on this. Neither is prescriptive on the purpose of the arts, but rather public funding.

B: Correct. Passage A says, "unless the public interest is somehow served, proponents of arts subsidies will be hard pressed to justify the transfer of money from taxpayers," demonstrating that public interest being served (serve public good) is necessary to be "eligible for funding." Passage B says, "a justification for such subsidies must show the direct benefit of spending taxpayers' money on things the taxpayers themselves would not have chosen."

C: Passage A doesn't discuss this.

D: Passage B would disagree.

E: Passage B would disagree.

@02kimask Thank you!!

@squirrellover Ahh thanks😭 that is super nice of you. I appreciate it!!

@danahermit Thanks!! I will definitely bring!

Hi! Could you elaborate?

I just wanted to bump this! @Kevin_Lin

Q-type: Implied ("suggests")

A: The author describes her as fairytale-like, not Ormes herself.

B: In the story, the character instantly achieves success, which is a far cry from severely limited options. Ormes "never shied away from the darker possibilities that made Torchy's victories so important," but that doesn't tell us that Ormes or our author would believe the main character to be severely limited.

C: Correct. The author states that "by placing her character in authentic situations where much depends on the courage of the individual, she expanded her social commentary to offer real-life lessons for her audience." Presumably, Ormes would agree, as she intentionally incorporated moments of sociopolitical realness. The character was also meant to be seen as "hardworking."

D: In the story, the character instantly achieves success, which is a far cry from struggling to achieve.

E: Our author suggests they were improbable, but we do not get to see why Ormes made the situations improbable or what she may think about this aspect.

Q-type: Application

Pre-phrase: The author would want the film to not be retitled, just translate the original title. The author would want subtitling to not be used for censorship or filled with mistakes/incompetence. The author is against dubbing.

A: The author doesn't mention explanatory material.

B: The author doesn't mention rolling films out in waves. The author also wants there to be consistency between the version critics see and that the public sees.

C: Correct. The author doesn't want subtitling to be filled with censorship or mistakes, but if it is strictly faithful, it should be okay.

D: The author doesn't say subtitles should be done away with period, just not done sloppily.

E: Careful. The author doesn't seem like they would be okay with restructuring (a fundamental change to the film itself). The author mentions that "reediting" to increase an audience's understanding "creates false expectations and distorts the work's intent."

Hi! In this case, the argument concludes that fluoridation of water does not prevent tooth decay because that is a factor present in the US and not Europe, and children in the US have worse teeth. But a gap in this argument is that there could be so many other reasons why children in the USA have worse teeth -- why immediately jump to fluoridated water? As we are trying to strengthen this argument, we are trying to make it more likely that this evidence (USA has fluoridated water, and USA has more cavities) makes sense to conclude the water fluoridation isn't a good preventative method. Saying that something else that could be the reason (bad diets) isn't happening does help make it more likely that water fluoridation is the reason, if another cause is taken away from consideration.

If we apply (B) to the argument:

"Fluoridation of water does not prevent tooth decay because that is a factor present in the US and not Europe, and children in the US have worse teeth."

--> "Okay, well, 90% of dentists in the United States use dental treatments involving the application of fluoride directly to tooth surfaces."

--> I'm still left wondering whether fluoridation of water doesn't prevent tooth decay or not. Is this a good, helpful thing that dentists use fluoride on tooth surfaces? Is it proof fluoride doesn't work because they have fluoride applied directly and still get cavities, or is it a result of the many cavities that dentists need to apply fluoride directly? What if fluoride is helpful in toothpaste form but not water form? Just being told this neutrally does not change much for the original argument. Do children even go to the dentist?

I hope this helps in any way!

Q-type: Author's Attitude, Implied

Pre-phrase: The author believes that Temple did a decent job in trying to lend his theory credence ("semblance of rigor") but his hypothesis was "strongly challenged" and could "easily" be incorrect (explained by other factors).

A: The author does not think it is essentially correct.

B: The author does not think it was vindicated.

C: The author does not think it was a valuable achievement, and it is unclear if this was outside Temple's primary (general) area. Temple was studying endangered birds.

D: The author does not think the formulation was very precise or laudable, merely that it was given a "semblance of rigor" -- nowhere near as nice as the language in this AC -- and historical detail is not mentioned.

E: Correct. The author would believe that the dodo extinction - reproduction hypothesis is not accurate because Calvaria did not lose its ability to reproduce.

Support: Red admiral butterflies fly in a highly irregular fashion, constantly varying their speed, wing strokes, and flight path. While predators avoid poisonous butterfly species, nonpoisonous butterflies like the red admiral need to elude predators to survive.

Conclusion: Scientists therefore hypothesize that the red admiral's flight style, which is clearly not energy efficient, evolved as a means of avoiding predators.

Strengthen, Pre-phrase: Poisonous butterflies do not have the same flight style. Predators cannot keep up with this flight style.

A: Correct. Exactly. This helps reinforce the evidence that the poisonous ones do not need the flight style to protect themselves, but the red admiral did.

B: Knowing it is the most common cause of death tells us nothing about the flight style.

C: This doesn't help tell us why, though. Did those butterflies' flight style evolve as a survival tactic too? Or not? It could go either way, so this can't strengthen in its current state.

D: This comparison to other insects doesn't tell us anything on its own unless we were to infer that the "other insects" are their predators.

E: Without knowing whether the other nonpoisonous butterflies fly irregularly, this doesn't tell us anything.

Conclusion: I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case.

Support: The prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

Flaw, pre-phrase: The prosecutor is never established as always correct in bringing charges.

A: The author concludes that "complete innocence" is false, but does not do so on the basis of there not being evidence for complete innocence. The author acknowledges "the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence."

B: The author doesn't use innocence as evidence for innocence, the author uses the prosecutor's bringing of charges as evidence.

C: Correct. The author's conclusion entirely rests on support from "but the prosecutor did this," without us being told why we should trust what the prosecutor did.

D: The author doesn't address these two different standards for guilt.

E: The author doesn't say that the judgment is suspicious or that it was reached quickly.

Hi @J.Y.Ping ! I know this is an old comment but this speaks to something I get tripped up on often, when a word is too out of place to make sense as the correct answer. Do you have any general advice for when we can overlook things like this issue in (E) and when we should be less loose about it? I don't want to walk away from this question thinking just that it was the only one that was decent. Is it that, because this is an implied question, we can make the connection that the author may think celebrating rank helps bolster it/maintain it?

Q-type: Author's Perspective, Implied

A: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told that humor is the reason why.

B: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told this "often" happens, just given one quote/instance.

C: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told anything about any other African American dances.

D: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told anything about later dances and more separate-sex dancing.

E: Correct. The passage says some "newly rich industrialists...found in the grand flourishes of her version of the cakewalk a fitting vehicle for celebrating their newfound social rank." So they liked the cakewalk to place emphasis on their new rank. To "bolster" doesn't need to mean to "increase," here it means to support, to celebrate, etc.

Wooo