I was so focused on the switch from "died from" disease X to "can contract" disease X

#help In terms of diagramming an answer like A, would it be fair to do the following?:

( broader collapse -c→ failure ) → blame unfair

broader collapse and failure

_

PROBABLY blame unfair

I got confused trying to simplify it the way JY did, but want to know if this is accurate. I took the first premise as having an embedded causal relationship, whereas in the second premise I understood it as saying there was a collapse and, concurrently, ViqCo failed (not explicitly stating that the failure was DUE TO the collapse).

#help

It wasn't discussed in the video, but is B also incorrect because we can't determine that reducing one known cause would result in the "avoidance" of resident discouragement? The other cause would still exist and therefore the discouragement would not have been avoided.

Comparing B to D, D uses softer language about "reducing" both cause and effect, but doesn't make a hard claim like B does.

This is why I ruled out B. Am I on the right track with this?

#help I thought because the stimulus uses "either ... or" that precludes the possibility of both occurring, but the opposite is stated in this video. Any insight would be appreciated!

I think it would be really helpful to hear a passage reading in real-time. I'm having difficulties knowing how much I should be reviewing the passage as I'm reading it, and I average around 4.5 minutes to read a passage (even the easier ones), which is just way too long. I've noticed myself trying to analyze the passages the way Kevin does in videos as I'm reading, but that obviously wouldn't work on a real test under timed conditions.

Does 7Sage have any videos where they run through a passage not as a lesson but just as an example so we can see what the thought process is really like? I've heard on the older podcasts that there are videos of JY taking tests. Are these still available and would these be a good resource for that? #help

Q17 #help

Is there a concrete way to identify that "iconoclastic view" is referencing those specific last lines of the preceding paragraph?

Because that line began with "finally," I read it as a continuation and final piece of the Haraway's overall view discussed in that paragraph. Based on that reading, I thought "iconoclastic view" was referencing Haraway's "most radical departure" - her challenge of the traditional disjunction between active knower and passive object.

I ended up choosing C because it referenced that disjunction, but I had reservations about the "troubling political and ecological repercussions" it mentioned. I couldn't find a basis for that part of the answer choice, but I didn't even consider A because I wasn't looking for an answer drawn from that final line about partial realities.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

The distinction I saw was that it wouldn't make his blending of genres more acceptable, but just his social vision.

AC D states: "If Mphahlele were to provide direction as to how his vision of the future might be realized, more critics might find this vision acceptable."

The line to reference in the passage for this is: “but critics often balk at this vision because Mphahlele provides no road maps for bringing such a future about.”

If Mphahlele provided a road map, the critics may find the vision more acceptable, but not necessarily his writing as a whole. AC D is just stating that this one change could slightly improve their attitude toward his writing, not that it would make them accept his unconventional blending of autobiography and fiction.

Q26 #help

Does anyone have a more comprehensive answer for why A is incorrect?

I chose it because of the information in the first paragraph: "Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying."

I interpreted the bold sections as supporting AC A because the common-law rules are shown to conflict with modern principles (they are considered bizarre). The author then continues with an example of such a rule that has since been abandoned.

I suppose I made the assumption that abandonment of a rule constitutes replacement with a principle. In my mind they're the same, because even if another rule were not put in place, the abandonment of the rule effectively changes the law to align with more modern principles.

Is AC A incorrect because it's too general? If it had said "some" common-law rules rather than just common-law rules could that have been correct?

I didn't consider B correct because of the word "rigid." I didn't think we had enough information to compare the respective "rigidity" of modern and eighteenth-century evidence law. While the latter was rigid within its own right, I wouldn't consider the abandonment of certain principles and the adoption of new ones "less rigid." To me, it just seems that the system is rigid in different ways.

I'd really love some more clarity on both of these points!

Fully thought it was a 1 star and was SHOCKED

Getting this in 31 seconds feels like a fluke, but... gift horse, I'll take it

We can see it changes to the author's opinion because of the transitional language in the first sentence of the final paragraph. "But the economists' position does not hold up under careful scrutiny." This is essentially the same as saying "but the economists are making a bad argument."

RC has always been my worst section by far and it turns out I just needed a framework to tackle the passages. I haven't needed to look at the passage a single time to answer the questions. Bless the Low-Res summary

I wasted a considerable amount of my youth watching those pipes, and I would do it again

Negatives within the general content of the argument don't matter, but this was a negative in the context of a contrapositive so it was crucial to the structure of the argument

Took over two minutes but I got it first try, I feel excellent^^

I initially chose B and then changed to D because I got really hung up on how the group researched was self selected as not experiencing back pain and D was the only answer that talked about the group. Any tips on how not to make this mistake again?

I feel the same way, but it's honestly so great to have things repeated at you again and again. If you hear something once you'll probably forget it, but if you hear it 100 times, even if you're not paying full attention, it'll stick in your brain

B is incorrect because it just fleshes out the causal chain of the argument. I used real world knowledge to make sense of it:

Certain diets are low in folic acids. When someone doesn't take in enough folic acid, the cannot produce as much serotonin. This then affects their mental health. B is saying that different countries have different diets that ultimately affect manifestation of symptoms, so it is merely consistent with the argument and does not point at a flaw.

C is the correct answer because it highlights another hypothesis that the argument failed to consider. There are plenty of cultural factors which may contribute to varied manifestation of symptoms.

In eastern European and some Asian countries like South Korea, there is a heavy drinking culture and these countries also have statistically high depression and suicide rates. This could form an alternative hypothesis to counter what is put forth in the argument.

I felt the same way. Every time a question seems really intuitive to me and JY goes "this question is hard, just do POE" I'm like.....is there something I'm missing and I'm just getting lucky?

It took me a two minutes just to decide what I thought the conclusion was. I had to really think through the support structure. Ultimately this is what helped me:

So jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices. → The best jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments.

This doesn't make sense. Jazz consisting largely of those kinds of voices tells us nothing about what the BEST jazz singers do. The best jazz singers could be in the group that DOESNT do that, we just don't know.

The best jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments. → So jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices.

I still really don't like this, but it does make more sense than the previous option. While we don't get an example of a jazz horn player (I tried to fill in my own, shoutout Louis Armstrong and Chet Baker), the argument DOES give us an example of one of the great jazz vocalists. Based on that we get an argument structure where the middle of the stimulus presents the minor premises supporting the first sentence, which in turn supports the final sentence.

I was still not 100% confident on this one, but I did get it right

I tend to think about the support structure and how that would look based on different claims being the conclusion. Does the proposal being ill-advised give support to the claim that phones are more upsetting on planes than on buses or trains? No. But it does make sense the other way around

You've got incredible movie references

I love when they teach me different definitions for words I thought I knew

Definitely doesn't make you stupid, but if it does then same lol. I eliminated E because even if that was her purpose, that doesn't mean she actually succeeded in achieving it. Maybe it was her purpose and she totally just fell short

WOO only two wrong!