no thank you <3

When is it okay to assume that there is a binary divide? In this case, we can't assume that it's good soil/bad soil because there could be mediocre soil. What about if we are talking about rationality? Consider the following:

"Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally"

If we negate irrationally is it 1)Not irrationally or 2)Rationally? Is there a binary divide in this case?

I may just be overthinking this, but I'm a little confused #help

I'm a little confused - e is referring to the year before the speed limit was introduced, so wouldn't that be 1989 (if the speed limit was introduced in 1990)? Why do the number of traffic fatalities in 1989 matter?

#help (Added by Admin)

"as many people consume coffee (cc) as consume .....psychoactive substances (ps)" --> cc > or = ps

I understand that this sentence means cc = ps but don't understand why it also means greater than. Would appreciate any thoughts on this!

Would appreciate you expanding on this! If we are specifically talking about athletes who need to improve muscle mass, why does it matter what other advantages engineered foods may have? Not too sure why this isn't clicking for me!

"Warranted only" is throwing me off. If the premise states a condition, doesn't that condition HAVE TO be met in order for the conclusion to follow? I was looking for an answer that resulted in increased air traffic volume which would thereby explain the planned expansions. Would appreciate any thoughts!

#help (Added by Admin)

can the "opponent's hypothesis" be classified as a sub-conclusion? Just want to know for my own general knowledge as that's how I initially broke the sentences down #help

for anyone confused, "daddy_descartes" gives a good explanation if you scroll down

Idk why I didn't see the double negative in AC C - very stupid mistake on my part. We shall do better next time!

" they do not contradict each other to the extent where the premises do" - this is exactly what I was thinking. I wasn't 100% certain that the conclusions were the same but the argument was disputing the premise, not the conclusion and that's what helped me pick the correct AC.

Equivocating flaws always trip me up - I never really catch when the passage uses two different versions of the same word. This is exactly why I wasn't too confident about eliminating A. Any tips? #help

First of all, I didn't even know that something divinely inspired IS considered to be religious. I thought that was the goddamn assumption SMH

Generally, during flaw question types, we need to pick the AC that exposes why the premise does not support the conclusion. In this case, we need to pick the AC that exposes why the premise is flawed because that is what the stem specifically asks us to do. So we pick the AC that attacks the premise/tells us why or how it could be flawed and AC E is the only one that does this. I think this is an outlier stem type but you should still know how to approach these types of questions in the future, given the exact same stem. Hope that helps :)

The author assumes that high profits are the surest way to increase family prosperity. AC C states a situation where high profits (as a result of low wages) are NOT the surest way to increase family prosperity. This is the only AC that states why the PREMISE does not support the CONCLUSION. AC B states why the PREMISE does not support the PREMISE. That's how I reasoned it in my head.

Sometimes when there's a lot of info given in the form of premises, I just form a mental connection between all premises and expect that the correct AC may mention either one of the premises. In order to make it make sense for me, I could just as easily trigger the chain and connect the premises in my head. In this case, I went into the AC hoping to see something that states high profit does NOT equal increase in family prosperity. AC C states exactly that but in a less obvious way because it mentions low wages and not high profit. We are given the link (low wages --> high profit) in the passage so we can conclude that low wages --> high profit (correct premises) does not result in family prosperity (which is exactly what I was looking for).

I now understand the answer but my initial thought process was as follows: I assumed that all left and right handed people were part of a whole (so let's say 10 R handed and 20 L handed out of a 100 people total) as opposed to considering the percentage of R and L handed people in their own populations. Still a bit unsure as to why it is wrong to assume that they are part of the same whole - would appreciate any thoughts! #help

this passage definitely needs some requisite understanding lol

"cannot be explained by economic interest alone"

Doesn't this mean imply that Drescher acknowledges there IS an economic part to it? Would appreciate input #help

I agree

JY: "D is just ridiculous"

Me: picked D

haha fml!

damn it's like that eh

This passage hurt me deeply

"Adaptations to high raw-meat diet" in the last para threw me off. So adaptations due to cooking have resulted in our inability to eat as much raw food as previously possible. But in the last para we learn that adaptations to a high raw meat diet (doesn't this conflict with the first idea of cooked food + less raw meat??) could have also resulted in changes to our anatomy???

Can someone explain this to me! #help

honestly I just laugh the pain away

this passage was dense

The first question threw me off. Wasn't the point of this passage to push for personal narrative as opposed to legal discourse? How are we assuming that personal narrative and legal narrative are the same thing? I instantly crossed out C because it said "legal narrative". I ended up choosing A because I interpreted "instructing them in the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders" as referring to discourse with emotional empathy - which as the passage states, IS favored by legal insiders. Would appreciate any thoughts! #help