flagellum & propel -> many parts

ancestors:

few parts (/ many parts -> / propel)

=======

/ survival advantage


need: / propel -> / survival advantage

Flaw 1:

A jump from “the most” to “most of”

the two concepts carry pretty different meanings

the most = the statistical concept of “mode”, which is the most frequently appeared number. It does not have to be the majority.

“Most of” = greater than 50%.

Just because the provincial capital has the most votes, that does not mean most of the votes went to the provincial capital. The total # of people who voted small cities are probably larger than the # of people who voted the provincial capitals.

Flaw 2:

The people voted the capital as the best city to live in that province, but does this mean it’s because they prefer life in large cities to life in small cities????

Maybe they voted the capital as the best city because there are tons of job opportunities. Mayne they hated the life in the big cities.

Question #2 in this LR section also involves this concept of "unique."

some can also be represented as and here.

e.g. A ←s→ B = there is A that is also B, or A & B.

belief based on reliable info → belief reasonable to maintain

----------------------------------- ←s→ / self-evident & / grounded in observable evidence

we can infer from this:

belief reasonable to maintain ←s→ / self-evident & / grounded in observable evidence

=

there are

belief reasonable to maintain & / self-evident & / grounded in observable evidence

The correct AC E) switched the order of these three things, so it might throw people off a little bit.

TSX harmful & banned

EZ was later found to cause greater harm than TSX

but EZ is not banned currently

=======

EZ banned or TSX legalized

The conclusion is to make these two pesticides have the same treatment

A) is saying both should be banned, but the argument is not saying this. It’s saying that either both legalized or both banned.

B) would also reach the result of both being banned.

D) legal and one illegal -> the legal one is less harmful than the illegal one

But we know EZ is the legal one and more harmful than the illegal TXS so it should not be one legal and one illegal.

E) “harmless” part is wrong.

Main words

first words -> capitalize

last words

occur in the middle & articles or prepositions fewer than 5 -> / capitalize

(beauty = truth)

most real -> most truth

====== (implying most truth -> most beauty, but we still need to assume beauty -> best to reach the conclusion below)

most real -> best

most real & / best (the allow us to contrapositive all the back to Beauty /= truth)

=======

Beauty /= truth

My reasoning for Question 4:

A) "mammals in neighbouring FOREST" is the problematic part. The okapi could be pushed into the forest because other large, hoofed animals' presence in the open border between forest and savanna. The explanation is not used to explain whether the okapis were pushed from one forest to a different forest.

B) No support for this one. We know they actually do not do this.

C) Just because hiding inside a forest could be a defense against predators, that does not mean they are not threatened by potential predators. Plus, who are the "usual predators?"

D) would not be supported because there are instances when the would not eat one plant to the exclusion of others; even where preferred foliage is abundant, they will leave much of it uneaten.

E) "Zoologists theorize that okapis are relicts of an era...since expanded."

B) substance delay muscle fatigue -> exacerbate problems caused by dehydration

“invariably” indicates conditional logic.

But we know from the passage that sugar is one such substance, but a small amount of it would help one avoid dehydration, so this would not be always true.

A) but two things are different. If u use the same criteria to measure them, no surprise that most efficient managers have excellent TM skills.

B) suggests that maybe you should increase their motivation first

C) time management class & / productive

D) The argument is not about whether they need to improve or not, but whether they can have even higher productivity. This is why I picked D).

E) suggest / time management class & efficient, putting the causal effect in doubt.

Traditional norms:

ignore unpleasant R and tell lie -> / sincerity

/ trust -> / succeed

succeed -> trust

=======

succeed -> / ignore unpleasant R and tell lies

need: trust -> / prevent sincerity

The question stem asks the role of "considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense," not the role of "it implies considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense."

Besides what JY said about A), another problem is that this AC would be describing those who made the products, not the theories.

Initially, I did not notice the distinction between "below national average" and "lowered the quality", and I thought this was a correlation-causation flaw, which is what I think A) is kinda attractive.

I thought A) was saying that "treats a phenomenon as an effect of an observed change in the face of evidence indicating that it maybe the effect of that change."

But the argument does not make this mistake, and even if it did, A) would still not be descriptively correct.

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

a hypothesis, first advanced by Edward Sapir in 1929 and subsequently developed by Benjamin Whorf, that the structure of a language determines a native speaker's perception and categorization of experience.

If you watched the 2016 movie Arrival, the scientists played by Amy Adams mentions this theory.

Around 2:50 in this clip linked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX8qOoyxt8s&ab_channel=videobiker

My take on #16 B).

I think the problem might have something to do with the last bit of AC B). "including that conducted by Belcher and Hu, which focus on using peptides to bind different crystals together."

1)

focus vs. focuses

here, the author used "focus" instead of the word "focuses" (singular). So there are more than one project with a focus on binding two crystals together???? But the passage only mentions one.

2)

"binding peptides with crystals vs. binding two crystals together with a single peptide"

A large portion of the passage talks about Belcher and Hu's study on using peptide to bind to semiconductor materials so the peptide could direct the crystal growth of the semiconductor. So, in these studies mentioned with detail in the passage, they only tried to bind peptide with crystals. And it's only in the very last bit of the final passage where the author mentions "they are also designing new peptides that bind to two different crystals at once ('to bind different crystals together')."

But B) says the two researchers' project's focus is on this thing that is only mentioned very briefly in the end. I mean the emphasis seems just wrong. Why spent a large portion of the passage talking about binding peptides with crystals and then call something u throw in in the final paragraph briefly (almost as extra information) as the focus?

3)

Most importantly, on a meta level, the author spends more paragraph talking about the research project of these two researchers.

I think B) would be a more accurate description had the author talked about more in detail about projects besides Belcher and Hu's.

A) anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it. 


everyone stop believe -> (really exist -> continue to exist)

=

everyone stop believe -> (/ continue to exist -> / really exist)

=

everyone stop believe & / continue to exist -> / really exist

(everyone stops believing in money & money no longer exist -> / money does not really exist)

Strengthen

the average age of people living in this region went from 52 to 57

=======

more people over the age of 65 live here now

but there could be several explanations for this phenomenon:

1) younger people could have left the place

2) mortality rate for younger people went higher (maybe due to a war so all the young people died off)

3) higher infant mortality rate

A) provides a perfect counter for the possible alternatives explanations.

if there are more young people now(which has the potential effect of lowering the average age of the population), and the average age still increased, this could only be explained by the fact that even more older people now live in this area.

B) kinda weakens

D) but what about the age of these people????

E) irrelevant.

SA

action -> know only some consequences

true [action morally right = action has the best consequences]

the above implies:

true [know action morally right = know action has the best consequences]

=======

true [/ know what action is morally right]

we now have a simple form of:

A -> B

C = D (view = as a bi-conditional)

=======

/ C

all we need to do here after understanding this complex argument is just to link up the two ideas:

B -> / D, which will give us / C.

know only some consequences -> / know action has the best consequences

C) matches this

/ knowing all consequences (know only some consequences) -> / know action has the best consequences

The common psychological phenomenon mentioned in the last paragraph is called

The Fundamental Attribution Error

One way that our attributions may be biased is that we are often too quick to attribute the behavior of other people to something personal about them rather than to something about their situation.

This is a classic example of the general human tendency of underestimating how important the social situation really is in determining behavior. This bias occurs in two ways.

First, we are too likely to make strong personal attributions to account for the behavior that we observe others engaging in. That is, we are more likely to say “Cejay left a big tip, so he must be generous” than “Cejay left a big tip, but perhaps that was because he was trying to impress his friends.”

Second, we also tend to make more personal attributions about the behavior of others (we tend to say, “Cejay is a generous person”) than we do for ourselves (we tend to say, “I am generous in some situations but not in others”).

more forest and less acid rain and better air quality now than 50 years ago.

this could be the effects brought by environmental policies

but the effects also supports those who reject predictions of inevitable ecological doom and those who argues too much restriction on the use of natural resources would diminish the $$$$ needed to adopt and sustain the policies that brought these improvements

after hearing the argument, we want to ask, why would the improvements supports the view that too much restriction would hurt the $$$$????

A) is saying that nations sustain their wealth by using the natural resources, this establishes a link between the two ideas.

I've seen so many questions with this structure already. Below are the two that I can remember of:

PT C2

25) Flaw

Although Stillwater Pond has been polluted by farm runoff for years, several species of fish still live there. The local fishing guide says that “the most populous fish species in the pond is also the one that has adapted best to living in polluted water.” So if, as recent studies suggest, the most populous fish species in the pond is the bullhead catfish, then it must be that the local fishing guide believes that the species of fish in the pond that has adapted best to living in polluted water is the bullhead catfish.

PT 79

18) NA;

A large survey of scientists found that almost all accept Wang’s Law, and almost all know the results of the Brown-Ester Experiment. But those results together with Wang’s Law contradict the Minsk Hypothesis. Therefore, most of the scientists surveyed reject the Minsk Hypothesis

snow ends -> clean snow within 24 hours

snow ends & / clean snow within 24 hours -> city clear -> bill the landowner

/ clean snow within 48 hours -> citation & / ex circumstance -> fine

A) / clean snow within 48 hours -> city clear -> bill

.........................................-> citation

Some KW only eat fish

Some KW also eat seals

KW groups usually have their own dialects

Seal-eating group’s dialect is different from fish-eating only group’s dialect.

Harbour seals can distinguish the two groups and avoid the seal-eating group.

Hypothesis: young harbour seals start with an aversion to all KWs but then learn to ignore those that do not eat seals.

This is a very specific claim.

So the hypothesis claims that this aversion is a learned behaviour instead of innate.

Moreover, they had an initial aversion to all killer whales.

C) the mature one would swim away cause it has never encountered such a dialect, and it triggers its natural tendency, which it had since its young, to avoid the unknown group of KW.

E) tells us that they would learn from experience, but this AC does not address the natural aversion towards all killer whales that all young harbour seals have.

(1) write to give pleasure -> / tell 100% truth

If this above statement were true:

book popular (assume high sales figure) -> give people pleasure -> / tell 100% truth (the last two parts were psuedo-linked by statement (1))

======= sub-conclusion

sales figure = truthfulness of the book

======= main conclusion

write to give pleasure & tell 100% truth

But the part being psuedo-linked does not actually connect. So we need to say: give people pleasure -> the author intended that pleasure, allowing us to use the conditional chain given by statement (1).

book popular (assume high sales figure) -> give people pleasure -> the author intended to give pleasure -> / tell 100% truth