LETS GOOOOOO

JY casually deleting Miyoko from existence

Wolves +1000 aura

E says that it is wrong for governments to ban the publication of literature that does not cause serious harm. See how that could mean that it is wrong for them to ban books that cause moderate harm. And can that be properly inferred? According to the stimulus, cases that might bring about harm if no action is taken is an exception to the rule of liberty. So we just can't make that inference that governments should limit the ban on publication to only those books that cause serious harm.

As many people have already said, AC (D) would still be wrong even if it said the IN of those cats without X were as big as the IN of those with X. This is because the author's conclusion is that the size of IN determines whether cats can get it, not that it guarantees infection.

First off, we don't know what Author A thinks are the real reasons behind loosestrife management from the majority of its supporters. Are most of them genuinely worried about the environment or concerned due to economic implications? IDK. All we know is that the author might support loosestrife management for "genuine reasons", but that doesn't even matter because the answer choice is talking about the majority of supporters.

It is very easy to support A. As you said, Passage B only mentioned one instance of animal endangerment due to the loosestrife, compared to Passage A which mentioned multiple species at risk. But just one example of species endangerment is enough to support answer A.

I understand why AC (B) would be correct, but I was having a hard time understanding why (A) is wrong. After reading the stimulus and the AC, I assumed that sewage sludge was something that was always produced by society, regardless of whether we use it to produce fuel or not. So in my mind, it was irrelevant if current methods of disposing it was harmful to the environment or not because it would have been dumped regardless. But yeah, I can see why AC (A) would be wrong if sewage sludge is not something that is being dumped currently, regardless of its relationship to energy production

im dead

Hello, I struggle with the MSS questions for the same reason; are we supposed to or not supposed to make inferences/assumptions, etc. You have to remember that MSS is just that: Most STRONGLY Supported. The stimulus does not have to flawlessly support the correct answer choice, you just need some support, hopefully more than the other answer choices.

Going back to this question, AC (C) says, "Certain kinds of behaviors on the part of toddlers may not be willfully disobedient." This AC is definitely supported by the stimulus, and here is why. Research shows that these little toddlers are failing to adjust to new rules given by the researchers largely due to their lack of prefrontal cortex development. That is direct support showing the toddlers can show certain behavior for any other reason besides purposeful disobedience. It's a very loose and easy statement to support as well.

"Certain kinds of behaviors (failing to follow new rules given by researchers) on the part of toddlers may not be willfully disobedient (due to any other reason besides willful disobedience, i.e. not being able to adjust to new rules because small brain).

Hope this helps.

Hello 180Jesus,

I believe answer choice A uses the word "satisfied" to show that the author is okay or content with how oscillation supports that neutrinos have mass. Seeing how the passage states the evidence for that was found and then builds on top of the implications that neutrinos have mass, we can see that author is indeed okay with that theory.

Perhaps you misunderstood "satisfied" as the author feeling happy or elated towards the theory, which, as you stated, would be unsupported.

The principle says you have to do something in particular in order to act responsibly. Think of the principle as a set of ground rules. Therefore, you can say that because someone did not do the particular thing that was set by the principle, they did not act responsibly. The second situation is still conforming to the principle/set of rules laid down by the stimulus.

I was tripped up on AC (E) because it says, "distorts history," instead of something like, "distorts historical awareness." I'm not sure why my brain had such a hard time accepting that part of AC (E).

I somewhat agree with you. But we still have to consider what Author A thinks about AC (D). The first author says nothing about the quality of the art itself, they merely argue that we should make art publicly funded because everyone should have the right to enjoy the culture.

Because we don't know how Author A feels about what D says, it would have to be incorrect.

I had trouble with this question has well. What helped me pick E was asking myself, "which answer choice is easier to prove?" The passage explicitly tells us that there is a dwindling number of farmers that are farming heirloom crops, from which we can make a very strong inference that this would cause heirloom crop varieties to decrease. But answer choice D says that heirloom crop varieties have become to difficult to farm in light of international markets. Difficult? I don't know about that. The passage does say that the farmers have been encouraged to move away from it, but that doesn't mean difficult.

If anything, mass agriculture international markets is making it easier for the farmers to move away to higher paying jobs and just buy their food instead of growing it, but to say that the mass agriculture had made it more difficult to stay farming heirloom crop is not the same thing.

I am interested! :D

I got tripped up by the wording of the stimulus.

When it says, "it does not follow that . . . Orwell read those books," I interpreted it as, "it follows that Orwell most likely did not read those books," or, "it is unlikely he read those books."

The intended meaning of, "it follows that Orwell did not necessarily read those books" makes a lot more sense, but I still think that my initial interpretation of the phrase is reasonable.

Additionally, the diction/structure of the argument is VERY strange. It starts off by saying that there is a likelihood Orwell used literary inspiration from books he read, then says that is why Orwell did in fact not do that. Like . . xD It would have made much more sense if the argumentative sentence started like so; "However, Orwell did not do that because . . ."

Thankfully, you can get the correct answer just by understanding the second sentence alone.

NEVER STOP DRILLING NEVER STOP NEVER

I relate to this a lot haha. I go a step further and insult the answer choice as well - "Um... okay?? You have nothing to do with the author's argument, you serve zero purpose, BE GONE"

Well-deserved, these are hilarious xD

I didn't think that answer choice D was providing any new information. It simply justifies us taking action against an change that might have affect something "important" to us. The correct answer does not cement or assert that it is important for us to preserve any species, but gives us a justification of what we should do if conservation of certain species is indeed considered important.

I mean it's a real life story, they can't just change the people's names all of a sudden. Also, they do that in LG because they know people often use initials to set up games and such.

begin meditation

#question: The reason I was confused is because answer choice B sounds like it is is assuming the fact downtown traffic congestion will decrease. What if the cost of living decreases but the congestion stays the same, or goes up? Is B not assuming that it will congestion will go down? The logic map also makes it look like the profits increasing causes congestion to decrease