No I think that can also explain why A is not supported. Even the lines 20-23 describing the very earliest tokens - we don't know at all what the very earliest tokens represented. There is nothing connecting that to the idea that they may have represented more than one item.

At the end of the paragraph they talk about how as products became more diversified, then there were significantly more types of tokens. I believe that this insinuates that each token represented one thing, otherwise why would you need so many more new tokens --> you could just use the old tokens to represent more types of items.

I don't think it is really supported, I mean at the end of the paragraph they talk about how there were many new tokens as new products were created. I think this insinuates that they had different tokens for each item.

Following! My only though is that it's MSS and not MBT.

Following! My only thought is that it's MSS and not MBT.

Me too! This was weird, but I guess any of the three bullet points refers to "development."

I got this wrong during BR! I switched from B to C lol because when I gave it more thought, I read C to mean that you cannot directly observe altruism from the data... because they may have been lying. Reading it again I realize they mean that you can never directly observe altruism in general hahahahah

I think for me a good way of thinking about it is the argument is concluding that because sticklebacks in the lake don't have armour, but the ocean ones do, then this must be because it is to help them evade their predators. However B is providing an alternative to that argument, it is saying: it's not because of their predators, the lake stickleback are bigger because they needed to to be warm. I hope this makes sense.

I guess through POE you are stuck with E, but I still feel like E is such a bad answer lol. It makes you assume that the surrounding towns didn't change their times/have starting times before 8:30AM, that most students in the surrounding regions did not go to Granville high school, etc. I put AC D, which is arguably probably weaker but I couldn't talk myself into writing E, I thought that the word 'rather' maybe implicated that accidents were moving from occurring in the morning to more in the evening. I get that's also wrong but E seems wrong too lol

For 17, I feel the reasoning is a bit meh. It "likely" leads to some convicted criminals receiving unwarranted sentence reductions, but the passage says that informants receive incentives like sentence reductions, but it doesn't have to be sentence reductions it can be other incentives. Therefore you have to accept that there is a jailhouse informant who received an unwarranted sentence reduction, which I feel like is a bit shaky. I interpreted C to mean that jurors are frequently subject to the burden of being required to weigh the various external factors when psychologically as humans we aren't predisposed to that. I don't think you have to make more assumptions than you do for E, but can someone talk me out of this? #help

It doesn't necessarily, but also, if you assume that they did not catch more fish by weight, then what answer did you pick? None of the answer choices really make sense given that caveat

The 180 curve tho....

Man this passage was rough lol

Lol this question broke my brain

The problem is that this is not a conditional statement, and you can only take the contrapositive of conditional statements (I think). This is a correlation (not even necessarily a causal statement. Make sure what you're reading is actually a condition statement (if A, B, etc.).

I chose B but I hope this helps for others like me: B does not actually discount the support offered for the conclusion. Here's why: if the people who occupied the part of Eurasia closest to the Mastedon were nomadic, what does that have to do with the conclusion? They could have just been nomadic, the projectile could still have been from a more distant group. In weaken questions you're looking to really attack the support that the premises offered for the conclusion so, and answer choice that makes us consider that even given the evidence, we cannot be sure about the conclusion. Whether or not the close group was nomadic tells us nothing about the distant group.

The difference in heigh doesn't matter because the claim is that hard surfaces make for greater running speeds for ALL runners. The variation within runners doesn't matter, we're looking for another reason why hard surfaces in general are conducive for faster running.

I am still unsure about this. I think this question makes you make the distinction between mentioning a product favourably, and an outright advertisement. However, I think in the real world these are often the same thing (ie. is mentioning a product in an article NOT advertising the product? I think it is). I think the editor does make some hypothesis about how readers respond to advertisements (if we are assuming my interpretation of advertising) in that when readers see advertising, this makes them question the magazine's editorial integrity, and some will stop reading ("lose that readership"). Does anyone have a more comprehensive explanation? #help #help #help

This is such a confusing question, but I hope this helps:

Double-blind studies are done to determine the efficacy of a drug (ie. whether or not it will produce the intended result). M says that we cannot perform a double-blind test because "various effects" will cause the scientists to know who has received the drug and who has received the placebo. E counters M by saying that M is wrong because M is assuming that they know the outcome of the study --> ie. whether or not the drug works. However, M does not have to be referring only to the THERAPEUTIC effects of the drug, and could rather be talking about the side effects. Like someone else said, AC C could totally be what M is assuming, but that is not what E is misinterpreting. E is focused on M's use of "various effects."

Don't worry I got this one wrong too lol

I think you should review conditional logic! This is a pretty basic conditional logic statement (sorry if this sounds arrogant, I don't mean it like that). Josh is inferring that IF a term doesn't refer to something, then it is not meaningful. So: /R --> /M

Then you can get the contrapositive which you just flip to get M --> R

hope this helps :)

Unhelpful, but I agree!

Is it stupid to focus on the word 'feasible' in the second last sentence? I wanted to pick D, but I thought that the fact that it had not been tested under all feasible conditions (which I interpreted as possible right now) then that means it has not been confirmed to the extend that science allows. Yes the first sentence says that it has not been falsified by any tests done, but what if there are more possible experiments we just haven't done yet that science is capable of? #help

I picked E through POE, but looking at this again isn't this wrong? It is right only if you assume that there is not an increase in total population. #help

I'm probably late, but I think the point of the sub-conclusion is that the ordinary people are NOT merely fanatics. It is the ordinary people in the regime that pursued what was eventually unattainable, not that doing this was a sign of fanaticism.

Is it just a semantic for me to focus on the discrepancy for the word "recover" and "harm less"? Because I became fixated on that and felt like B was the only answer that sounded relatively right but included the idea that the wildlife was likely to recover, rather than just be harmed less.

#help

I was thinking for A that just because your household income is high does not necessarily mean that you are "economically advantaged" because someone making 70k a year with 12 kids vs 1 kid paints a vastly different picture of economic advantage doesn't it? Also average income varies by state, so making 70k a year in NYC vs. Idaho will again show very different degrees of economic advantage. Can someone explain to me why my thinking is wrong? #help