under timed condition, I chose E b/c the stimulus said "comparable size and quality";

but in the study mentioned in the stimulus, we select the same size and the same quality, and then compared their prices btw "standard" and "molecular"; this is just an evidence to show us how the price is expensive;

but this is a subset of "three-piece molecular sofa" to use to compare, what's the proportion of "same quality as standard sofa" within the whole set of "three-piece molecular sofas"? we don't know, so E does not conflict with the stimulus

while B needs a bunch of assumptions;

first, how much demand and supply before increasing?

second, demand "sometimes increased more quickly" than supply, even though we assume demand actually larger than supply, it's just sometimes happened, how comes it becomes general situation?

For Q27, I don't think I should eliminate A in the first round after reading passage A only; the author of passage A have specific point in para.1 to say he disagreed with this point; so if the author of passage B also disagreed on this, then they do both agree with this statement? And in this case, this ac could be the correct one?

I think the reason to eliminate this is b/c passage B doesn't mention about this statement.

#help

I'm still confused about E.

P: the bigger house is built by rich people, and there are narrower boards in it.

C: the narrower board is probably used to represent their wealth

E said, the other materials, some expensive things, they show these rich people's wealth, and they are some parts of the house.

so, I think e gives the opportunity for narrower boards, say, they are also parts of house, so they could be used for showing their wealth.

#help

Why "on average“ in C could be equal to "usually"? if there are 10 issues, and one specific issue has 10 errors, while the others has no error, then, this situation could conclude "few errors" on average, but this is not what the stimulus means.

#help

I'm confused about AC C.

for c, I think it's just for certain widely accepted theories, if 49km happen, then pheno CAN BE explained, there could exist some new hypo to explain this phenomenon, so how could we know, in the real world, the black hole IS spinning? This just exists in the belief, how could we know about the real?

#help

I choose C during the timed condition b/c I thought the support is from the analogy.

If we have the conclusion that is really supported by the similarity btw physics and biology, what it should be like? I think it's like this: physicists should do the same things so that they could get such benefits; then I guess C might be a great AC; b/c it points out that physics need the "safeguards"

But for this question, "if" physicists were to do such things, this told us:

1) whether physicists do it or not, I don't know and I don't care;

2) we would like to support a relationship whether it could be triggered or not, not just a specific action emitted by specific person;

now we could change this conclusion as: if biologists (b/c now we only care about this relationship, not really care about who did it) were to do the same thing, it would be conducive to progress in biological field;

why?

because: biologists did it and prevent the further major incidents;

now, you see, we need the bridge there, prevent further major incidents ===> conducive to progress;

this is what A provided: major incidents are suck, thus preventing it is good (conducive to progress)

This question is really smart to use "physicists" in the conclusion, to confuse us to think like, concluded with physics and supported by biology, there should be something similar btw them; but if we just want to support the relationship, it doesn't matter who emitted; they could change any person they want

I still confused about this question.

For D, I'm thinking about "thunder-tree broken" example

sometimes when tree is broken, but there isn't thunder there

sometimes when thunder there, the tree isn't broken

Even though they are not accompanied with each other, we couldn't deny that the thunder cause tree broken

For this question, even though "theta waves" not always be accompanied by "profound creativity", we couldn't say that it doesn't exist the causal relationship, so I don't think the stimulus ignores that.

For B, I think this answer choice attract me by "necessary for", because the stimulus said "merely"by music, but according to the above information, we couldn't know that "music" is the only thing for improving "creativity", so I choose B

#help

I’m interested! RC is really tough for me. As for time, evening is better for me :)

I'm confusing why I couldn't consider this question as "exact number vs. percentage"?

the premise said: a high percentage of injured within the group of large car, and low percentage of injured within the group of small car; we even don't know the total number of cars in each group, how could I conclude in a comparative statement about the "likelihood of being injured" btw small car and large car? what if I have 1000 large cars in accident and only 200 small cars, and 20% large cars get injured, and 80% smaller cars get injured, then now I got 200 large cars vs.160 small cars, then this premise is irrelevant to the conclusion;

So, I thought the assumption is: the small car group has the same size as the large car group in this study;

D just points out that the size of these groups could be not equal;

I don't know why I should consider the percentage of "not accident"?

#help

I'm interested! But I only have time on weekend :wink:

Congratulations @ You deserve this, and thank you for all your advice! :wink:

I 'm in. So happy to see this!!

Could I consider this question as " correlation-causation" type of question?

So I think "when EPS and inhibit their display of the emotion, then increase the heart rate" only shows that one thing is true, the other thing must be true; but it's only correlation relationship, which these two things must appear together. So, when conclusion shows one causation: "inhibiting displays of emotion" --------c--------> "heart rate increase", then we need to block other possible causations to make the conclusion valid.

#help

I am interested!:)

For E, I don't think the problem is on "similarity"; b/c we said "this year's circumstances were a reversal of last year's", which means, the author thought they are similar, even though one is "tornado", another is "earthquake";

IMO, the problem for E is "time order"; this ac is comparative statement, comparison happened btw "aid on those who experienced similar hardship" vs. "who had experienced different hardship", and who the Hollyville are more likely to aid. "similar hardship" win.

but according to the stimulus, the tornado of Hollyville happened after earthquake, then how could they know the earthquake is similar or different from their tornado disaster?

And we don't have any information to show that how much people would participate in aid after their own disaster happened.

Therefore, we couldn't support this ac at all.

For this question, could I consider like this:

I translate the sent. "although ignore disagreement for the sake of defeating..." into:

[before the victory] defeating the dominant party →/disagreement

[after the victory] disagreement

so this implies: [after the victory] /defeating the dominant party

therefore, the conclusion should point out: to avoid "/defeating the dominant party", it's necessary to /disagreement (which is the generalize the stimulus"

#help

For choice B, why it doesn't block the causation that different started time of working cause the productivity increases?

#help

For this question, is there a flaw that using one fault of theorists to support theorists' theory is incorrect?

so I think the arg. is like:

p: these theorists ignore this fundamental principle: acceptable social phil must promote peace and order

c: anarchy deserve no attention

so they use the 'ignorance' of theorist to support 'anarchy' deserve no attention

Also, if I change B into "... as an acceptable social philosophy', would that be correct?

because when I translate the premise:

translate: acceptable social phil--> peace and order

contrapositive: /peace and order --> /acceptable social phil

and the conclusion is: anarchy -->/acceptable social phil

so, our assumption is: anarchy --> /peace and order, but we don't know whether anarchy has done this or not, and we need an evidence to show this. so I think they need evidence to show this.

#help

For Q1, I choose D through the elimination, but I still don't think this is MP for the whole passage.

This AC only points out the risk will exist in the future, this info is only mentioned in para.4, so I don't think it's the MP for whole passage. Could anyone help me to explain choice D?

#help

Actually, I didn't refer the "histories written by enemies" to "little documentations";

So I used these two premises as this: First, they told us there are so little documentation, implying we hardly reach or study Roman's original documentations, combined with the second premise, we get: so we are using the histories made by enemies, instead of original documentations;

so then, C) showed like, you thought the enemies writings are biased, but look at Roman itself documentation, they showed Caligula is similar to previous tyrant emperors;

Caligula has the problem of lack of documentations, but for the previous tyrant emperors, definitely not all of them had such problem, so this is an evidence that he could be similar to those emperors as "really cruel"

I fall in the trap in B) under timed conditions, b/c I thought this provided some info about "people under his domination", these people might be more likely to reflect what kind of emperor than enemies, but I missed the modifier that "they already regarded Caligula as 'tyrant'", so this showed these people's view also not relatively objective

In this question, the main problem is how to find the correct paradox. I think that "unexpectedly" makes this very tricky, we would assume or predict that the following should say like, the early human spent less time to have social grooming; therefore, C is an very attractive one, which could explain why the early human have less time for social grooming;

but in the last sentence, the paradox is not about the time issue; even the early human only have social grooming with parents, the length of time that they have social grooming might still longer than other primates; what we need to solve is that why early human has such specific people to have social grooming: why only parents but not others;

now, B) is a great statement to solve: saying, for other people within the group, the early human use language, which is more effective; while C) couldn't explain why early human do not use "social grooming" to others within the group

For Q20, at 00:52, why JY said, even we change A into "species differ more in the polarity mechanisms than leg/arm mechanism" it's still not the main point but just a true fact?

#help

I choose A at the first time, and choose C during BR;

During timed condition, I thought I would like to concluded with "it's wrong to keep confidential", and I need something to trigger the relationship, so A seems really good to me;

I think I make the mistake in separating SP/SC/MC;

SP: research didn't shared → development of effective medical treatment may be delayed

SC: humans may suffered unnecessarily

MC: wrong to keep confidential

there are two bridges needed; from SP→SC; and SC→MC;

the "triggering" is required btw SP→SC;

while in the main arg., we need to accept "human may suffered unnecessarily" is true, and to support MC; so in this arg., we just need the conditional bridge to link them together;

For A), 1) "the behavior that they know..." makes the behavior mentioned in this AC narrower than what the stimulus said; 2) "will" makes this AC much narrower;

so, this couldn't be used to negate our SC, used contrapositive and get "research should be shared"

Please correct me if I'm wrong :)

For Q4, I choose E at first, b/c while I compared D and E: E has "tribe" but D is talking about the land claim suit; so I thought "land suit" is only one aspect in the instance provided by the author; the emphasis of this instance is to recognize the tribe but not the land claim suits; also, there are tons of land suits, and some suits are btw two people in the same culture which is the same as the legal system, then why should the courts accept their oral testimony?

And later, I found D is better than E.

In this passage, the problem is not primarily in the tribe definition, but in the process for proving “tribe”, which is mainly because different cultures’ discourse: the legal system didn’t accept the oral proof and Mashpee only have oral proof

At the end of the para, the author said "accommodating the culture discourse for the fairness of legal decisions";

E) "the definition of the tribe" is attractive to me, line 34-36 showed the definition, but if you change this definition, where would you like to change? there are two components: governing themselves & inhabiting a particular territory, almost every culture would understand them in the same way.

D) if we accept the oral testimony as evidence in the land claim suits, now, at least in the land suits, the culture discourse has been solved, which "accommodate the differences in the discourse between cultures" is achieved.

For this question, I don't think the analogy has any "support" function in this arg.

the premise is: trade deficit may indicate, but not cause the weakness of economy;

conclusion: "restricting imports" is useless; the analogy only provided the perception about how useless to have an action on trade deficit;

so, I eliminate B and C and choose A; the action of "restricting imports" is based on you assumed that "trade deficit" is the cause; A) pointed out that this is an assumption, and even you take an action to treat the deficit of trade, it does nothing

I don't understand why "analogy" here could be in describing how the premise support the conclusion

#help