What does "going beyond its original purpose" mean?

#help

I actually cannot see why B is right here. I eliminated B right away because B talks about the content of a child's learning (what they should learn), while Dana only talks about the methods of learning (how they should learn). I think it is still possible for Dana to agree that all children' should learn to adapt to different methods, if the way that those children learn that adaptation should match the style they are accustomed to. Like, if they're more used to group learning, a child could still learn how to work on their own by engaging in a group conversation to exchange ideas/tips.

If B said instead that "All children should adapt to various educational methods", then I would see how B is right. But the fact that it said "should learn to adapt" makes it irrelevant, because Dana said nothing about what children should learn.. Did anyone else see it that way?

#help

I'm having trouble understanding why D is correct, would someone be able to clarify this for me? In my mind D is right only if you assume that the tree dwelling kangaroos (TDK) branched off from land dwelling kangaroos (LDK) before the LDK lost those attributes.. But it very well could have been the case that TDK descended from a species of LDK that still retained the tails and thumbs because the stimulus never specified when the LDK lost them.. Basically, D implies either

common ancestor

　／　　＼

(x) LDK (w/o attributes)

............... / \

LDK modern TDK (w/o attributes)

OR

common ancestor

　／　　＼

(x) LDK (w/ attributes)

................ / \

LDK (w/o attr.) modern TDK (w/ attributes)

...and if you take D to mean the second diagram, it wouldn't explain the discrepancy at all, I think?

#help

Hi! I'm thinking of taking it in May, but I would like to join if that's ok!

I agree, and it is not unique to this video. In my opinion JY tends to disregard wrong AC's too quickly without providing a reason for why they're wrong

(I don't see a reply button but I hope you see this)

@julielamberth43 Thank you so much for replying! Specifically I am talking about PT22 S2 Q25. I actually still am on blind review so I don't know the correct answer. I am stuck between A and B though. To me both are flaws, but I am not sure which is the main flaw. I am leaning towards B but I am not 100% sure because of my reasoning in my original post.

(btw since I am still on blind review for this question please don't spoil the answer :smile: )

What is the difference between sentimental and emotional?

#help

D is wrong because that AC is still consistent with the skeptic's conclusion. The skeptic only said the Debbie did not use slight of hand, a trick deck, or a volunteer. The skeptic did not say that Debbie did not use a method different from these.

A doesn't have to say "switch between methods" because the possibility that Debbie did not use the same method is sufficient to assume that Debbie must have then switched between methods. (The only way she could have not done the same method is if she changed methods)

There are two interpretations of this question: 1) "it" refers to the argument and 2) "it" is expletive and does not refer to anything. Both interpretations yield different answers - how are we supposed to know which one to use??

How come JYP doesn't address the second half of A? He seems to just skip over it

yeah..this explanation was not it

https://imgur.com/rHnKErI

Here's a tree for a visual of the different structures I'm talking about. The difference again between both is what clause the clause [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] modifies.

Hi this is two year later lol but I also chose E for the exact same reason. Initially I thought that the 38% of people not smoking in group two didn't tell you anything about group one, but that's not true. Both groups were measured at the same start point, so in order for them to have the same percentages over a given time, they have had to quit/not quit in equal numbers starting from the first reporting point. Basically, earlier percentages become the basis for later percentages. (If someone smokes at the one month mark, they automatically cannot be included in the percentage of people who didn't smoke at the year mark, even if they quit after the one month mark.) Because the one month mark for group one quitters were 0%, that must mean that the year mark for group one quitters is also 0% (because within that year, one month into the study, they all smoked). So, we actually do have two percentages to compare at the year mark: 38% for group two and 0% for group one.

I think unrealizable and unattainable mean the same thing!

The assumption that we're trying to break in this question is the assumption that only individuals buy cars. (The argument we are trying to weaken describes a general phenomenon, average car sale price changes, and attributes those changes to only individual behavior). So, in order to "wreck" that assumption, we have to introduce another population that can buy cars (non-individuals like families, companies, etc.).

A proportion value would be correct to use here because a proportion describes a part/whole relationship. If the proportion of individuals buying cars decreased, that automatically must mean that there is another group that is not individuals that buys cars. This would break the assumption that only individuals buy cars and thus weaken the argument. (That's why he says that you can re word the answer to read "sales to individuals make up only a proportion" and still have it be correct.)

The statement "the number of individuals purchasing cars has decreased.." doesn't give you any information about another group purchasing cars. For example, it could still be true that only individuals have bought cars over the last 25 years but the amount of individual buying cars has decreased. In this example, the assumption we're trying to break that only individuals buy cars still holds. So an answer like this would be wrong.

I thought this too but to be honest I still don't get it

ask yourself "why should I believe this?" You will be able to answer this question with other statements in the passage if it's a conclusion.