Maybe I could've worded it better. I'll try my best to rephrase it. It doesn't weaken because, nothing the question states is inconsistent with what they already said. If anything it strengthens the authors point.

Author already says that the bigger your brain the more weight you have to carry. More weight also means stronger muscles are needed.

Individual canaries are allowed to have variance in their brain size, which means they need more/less muscle to carry those brains, but-- still be within the range that makes sense for a canary.

Would be safe to say they do. I believe the author is talking about canaries in general.

Let's say there is a hypothetical max brain size 15g for a canary. With this brain size comes increased repertoire of songs and more muscles to carry the birds increased weight. Would this go against what the other says? Do they still lose their song selection in the fall? This size is just variance between individual birds.

If you scored a 146, your LG can use work. I would recommend using the 7sage method and getting that to -0/-1 first. Don't completely neglect the other sections, but the bulk of your studying should be going to LG. IMO it is the easiest section to improve on, in the shortest amount of time.

There are two LR sections. Which section?

Just take it. If it's your first test, it's good experience to have under your belt. If you're afraid of a low score holding you back in the applications cycle (which it won't), you can always cancel it.

"So E is not supported because there isn't anything in the passage to support the idea that this gap between men and women in the labor force will widen?"

Yes. Even if it were to be implicit, there is still more support for A.

"Does the author think this status quo will continue or is that too speculative a question to know for sure?"

"Indeed, as long as the labor markets remain hostile to parents... women will seriously be disadvantaged in the labor market." (64-8)

@ashleytien240 said:

@ashleytien240 said:

I can't speak for JY, but maybe it sounded off to him because he isn't used to correct answer choices for this specific question type, starting off with "thus." I don't think "thus" is an issue at all, or to the extent of, the other things I mentioned.

Why is it ok to pick an answer choice that does talk about men in the labor force? That threw me off and I want to know why that aversion is unwarranted for this particular question.

I'm assuming you were hesitant about picking an answer choice that mentioned men, due to the passage being geared mostly towards women.

It's ok in this case however, because men are being used as contrast, to further support the authors ideas about women.

I can't speak for JY, but maybe it sounded off to him because he isn't used to correct answer choices for this specific question type, starting off with "thus." I don't think "thus" is an issue at all, or to the extent of, the other things I mentioned.

For questions that ask you to do something like "continue the passage" It's really important that the answer choice is;

A. Descriptively accurate

B. Is within the tone of the passage/area.

One thing that instantly jumps out to me for why E is wrong is, "Continue to widen."

The tone of the passage as a whole is geared towards explaining the current situation of the labor market. The future wasn't mentioned. Assuming that the gap will continue to widen is thus, too extreme. Also not as obvious, "the institutions in society that favor men" seems farfetched as well. Certainly a little more supportable than the second half of the answer, however-- you're still left making big assumptive leaps.

As for A, it just fits in really nicely at the end of the paragraph. You don't have to make crazy assumptions. According to the passage, men will be "better able to" enjoy the labor markets. Of course they will be better able to, they don't have to take care of a child to the extent of women(P3/4).

Notice the dichotomy of the two answer choices. One you have to "try" to find support for, as for the other, it's given to you in the passage.

Actually, you have it the other way around. The rate of speciation is something that was stated to be true, not an assumption. "The old belief that climate stability accounts for high level of species diversity." If something is accounting for it, it's probably the case that it's already true or at least believed to be true.

As for C, the passage uses the deep sea as an comparison to the Amazon basin, by assuming that both haven't had any drastic changes take place. Later on in the passage however, it is clarified that they actually aren't the same. He never explicitly claims that is was. The passage also uses words like "could be" (line 7) which further solidifies that this is an assumption.

A is correct because it says; Physical education, in general-- should include noncompetitive activities. It's a blanket statement. The possibility that some may already include it, doesn't make it any less convincing. The stimulus provides us with information that lets us deduce that, most don't.

What we are trying to strengthen in this argument is the idea that; asteroids have struck earth in an organized natural process. The stimulus further states "a halo like swath" that formed across the Northern Hemisphere to support this claim.

D those a pretty good job at this. In summary-- D says that something inside the earth has an effect on asteroids near it, which arranges them in specific orbits prior to impact (organized natural process).

C was a contender for me. This doesn't strengthen because it ultimately doesn't tell us anything about a natural organized manner of impact. It just tells us that in fell in clusters. We have to assume that, a natural process organized them in clusters during impact, for this question to even have a chance.

I need to pay closer attention the the answer choices. I choose D because it mentioned both being tasty, and healthful. However, I missed out on the very specific wording.

D is wrong because, it states things that aren't the case, when the stimulus only talks about degree.

B is the better answer. It strengthens the idea of picking the tastier ingredients.

I got this question wrong timed, after getting stuck between A and C. I ultimately ended up choosing A because I glazed of the very specific wording in answer choice A.

A states that; wolves discouraged "other predators" from moving into the area. Although this could be true. This actually tells us very little. The stimulus talks about controlling the moose population. Are the "other predators" the wolves scared off, the same ones that would be in competition with them, for moose specifically? We can't assume that they are.

Also, another reason A could be wrong is; Even if we assumed that wolves stopped predators of moose specifically, from coming into the area (wrong to assume)-- what about the predators that are currently there? Shouldn't the moose's current predators, in addition to newly introduced wolves combined, result in a net decrease in the moose population?

I can see how that answer choice can be tempting, especially since they use the example of Zirkel and Schoenfeld.

B) is incorrect however, because Zirkel and Schoenfeld were only mentioned once in the entire passage, and the rest of the passage was directed towards the scholars in general.

Due to this, there is no clear "opponent" and even if there was, we just know that they criticized legal researchers, which the author himself says is "justified"(line 3.)

In the passage, it states that; the plaintiffs themselves "believe their cause is just" regardless of evidence that shows to the contrary.

A) Is correct because, the athletes continue to follow their training techniques, even though they have knowledge of the statistics that show it is not in their favor to do so.

the "cause" you mentioned is -- " the athletes insistence, to the continuation of the training, regardless of the knowledge to evidence against its efficacy."

I think you may have got this in the wrong order, or I'm mistaken.

Conclusion: Less $ now on effective treatment of X than 10 years ago.

*Answer D

*

Year 2010

$100 spent total

Standard = $90 (90%)

Non Standard = $10 (10%)

Year 2020

$1000 spent total

Standard = $100 (10%)

Non Standard = $900 (90%)

Even if more money is being spent now (2020) on NS treatment, it is not the case that LESS money is being spent on S treatment now than 10 years ago

2010 = $90

2020 = $100