Q22: Why isn't D the correct response? It seems that the author of passage A would not think independent research for appellate court makes sense for the reason (A) is correct. I still find A and D to be equally good answers.

Can anyone explain why for RC Q18 Passage B is"to introduce the main topic to be discussed" instead of "to present a view that will be argued against"? I understand that answer (B) is wrong because the orders don't line up with the stimulus, but in passage B the author utilizes the S&H to introduce an interpretation that they argue against for the entirety of the passage.

Doesn't this question also make the assumption that the relevant works of art "completely" satisfy the viewer? Even if you hypothetically see the Mona Lisa, you could be satisfied and still derive more aesthetic fulfillment from viewing a contemporary painting? I don't find JY reasons for discounting E to be enough. Could someone explain?

#help

Hello Admin,

This video states that D is the correct answer, that is what I put for the Blind review, but the it is noted as wrong and C as the correct answer. There is a discrepancy between the results of the section and the video.

I choose A because it is obviously the answer for SA. However, it was less clear to me that it was an obvious answer for NA. Are NA always SA as well? I feel like no. How do we distinguish this?

If the question was still asking for a flaw and the last sentence was adjusted to read, "since those who regularly use papercrete think it's promising for use in large-scale projects, it is likely that papercrete is promising for use in large scale projects." Would A still be a valid flaw? My instinct is yes, because those who regularly use papercrete are not often using it for large-scale projects.

If the question is not adjusted, E is by far the correct/best answer, but if the "are familiar with the material" element, it seems that A could be used to discredit a crucial premise.

Why isn’t it B: Denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing evidence against it → Yolanda’s conclusion is that Joyriding is a more dangerous crime than hacking because it endangers people. Arjun argues that computer crimes also cause physical harm, but this is attacking the core premise that Yolanda’s argument rests on. Is attacking the evidence enough to say that Arjun is attacking the conclusion even though Arjun never demonstrates that hacking is more dangerous than joyriding?

#help (Added by Admin)

Would love to join!