@NaileaGodinez Happy to help!

I was debating between and isolated both A and E.

B & D were just too strong to get any type of support from the stimulus, so I thought to cross those out entirely.

C is just not supportable.

A was my gut decision, but I now know that I was incorrect. It is also not supportable. We don't know the predictable manner in which birds respond to signals of aggression, matter of fact, we do not know anything about the birds other than what the studies are trying to tell us. So to make this statement, we would be talking out of our butts. Straight up talking just to talk.

E is correct on multiple accounts, primarily that it is discussing what has been the focus of the stimulus. It does not talk about any predictions re the birds, the birds are just the subject of the study. "However" indicates a slight tonal shift, which means that the author is speaking up re their own opinion to point something out that does not sit right with them. The author is trying to say that the studies are cool and all, but it does not move the author to agree outright.

The bridge that we have to connect is the conclusion to the premise. We need to understand how judgment fits in here. By this understanding, we have to eliminate B (broad, doesnt specify Stuart's art so it is a blanket statement we cannot support), D (we don't know for certain, we only know Robbins case, another blanket statement we cannot support), and E (same as B, broad, doesnt specify Stuart's art, unsupportable blanket statement) since they do not include judgment.

That leaves us A and C.

I was stuck on C for such a long time because I was circling around the idea that 'understanding' must be a part of the AC. That was my assumption, and it was wrong.

The premise talks about Robbins understanding too well and not well enough, since we do not know what 'defines' understanding, to choose this AC would be backing an unsupported choice.

Robbins is not able to outright dismiss the art nor is she able to praise it. This aligns with AC A. To pass judgment on the art, Robbins MUST be able to dismiss it or praise it. This aligns with what our premise says, and thus is the only supportable AC.

I misinterpreted exclude to be a bigger picture term, for example, to say that the author intentionally did not include other explanations. I did not even think that it could be used in a similar manner as 'dismiss' which is kinda on me and also kinda onna test. Wtvr. I will be on the lookout to evaluate multiple definitions of emphasized words to better understand it's place in the argument/AC.

Ok hindsight 20/20. I chose D, but we literally talk about the ideas in the first paragraph. My issue was that I had a hard time understanding that it was a tradition.

I did not choose B because I thought that the themes in jazz were addressed re last 2 paragraphs. I think I misinterpreted what themes were being addressed here. Jazz mechanisms inspired Ellison, but the writing re themes/dramatics did not come from jazz directly.

"Ellison found these criticisms to voice a common demand, namely that writers should censor themselves and sacrifice their individuality for supposedly more important political and cultural purposes. He replied that it demeans a people and its artists to suggest that a particular historical situation requires cultural segregation in the arts."

I guess that the separation relates to individuality vs. cultural/political purposes of the creation of art. He is referring to the idea that the implied segregation is of self v. community in evaluation of cultural artwork. Ellison disagrees with this. He thinks two things can be true at once, you can create artwork re individuality/self and have it apply to the community, it depends on interpretation. There is no need to segregate such ideas in the arts.

I chose D but I can see how A is correct.

The passage states the following criticism: "his allegiance to the concerns of the individual prevented him from directing his art more toward the political action that critics believed was demanded by his era's social and political state of affairs; and that his indulging in European fictional modes lessened his contribution to the development of a distinctly African American novelistic style."

A directly correlates with the initial criticism. If the book generated more positive attraction re social conditions, then it is likely that the critics would have more of a favored response to it.

D does not get specific enough, nor does it really tackle the criticism. American literature is not the same as African American literature. This distinction is really important in this case. If he did this, he would have missed the mark and gotten the same criticism again.

I think the main idea is that if an AC seems obvious, hold and then check the others for specificity. Take a beat to figure out what criteria is being evaluated and translate it properly.

The critics were upset that his book did not address the social/political state of affairs. But, if he got the buzz for it and progressed the social conditions, they would not be able to say that.

B - not what is being called out, irrelevant solution

C - not what is being called out, irrelevant solution

E - no, audience was never an issue, irrelevant solution

Ugh I goofed this badddddddd.... did not pay enough attention hellloooo

Ahhhh I totally see why B is correct now.

The late paintings = later tool using neanderthals, while the earlier paintings are the distant hominid forebears. Thus, the assumption was that the distant hominids must also be doing the same as the tool using neanderthals.

Chalking this L up to being lazy & not paying enough attention to work things out.

I chalk this up to lack of close reading. I chose C which requires unnecessary assumptions that are not afforded by the passage, D was totally correct.

I was in btwn A and D -- I interpreted emergence as a new idea, when it does say "proof of" which implies that the idea was present and accepted in Greek society at that time.

ACs A & B are too strong. C is not an assumption for the conclusion, it is not necessary when evaluating the conclusion.

D is necessary to ensure that comedians have ppl to talk about / themselves. If everyone who values an ideal especially high DOES succeed, then the content of a comedian's routine would not exist/inconsistent with the conclusion. Thus this must be the assumption for the argument.

Note to Self: NA questions specifically -- negate it to see if the argument falls apart. If it does, then it is the NA, if it doesn't, then not the NA.

E is a trap. I thought that it would help explain the current popularity portion, but it actually does not. If we negate it -- ppl today do NOT fail to live up to their own ideals more frequently than in the past -- it does not do much to the argument.

Much like the other comments stated, current popularity is not the same as increased popularity.

"Comedians who display disrespect could have always been popular. In which case, the frequency of people who fail to live up to ideals does not matter (i.e., fails negation test)." ttw25273

That is why the comparison to the past does not make sense in this case/could be considered irrelevant.

I got this question wrong because I made unnecessary assumptions here. I was filling in the blanks and was trying to use the ACs to bridge a gap in my understanding. I know that now. DO NOT USE ACs TO HELP YOU JUSTIFY YOUR OWN REASONING THEY COULD BE JUST STRAIGHT UP LYING TO YOU.

Stimulus Translation:

Fuzzy Seeds -> long stems & NO white flowers

Curled Leaves -> WHITE FLOWERS

Thorny Seedpods -> curled leaves, NO OTHER INFO GIVEN

Specimen of Plant X -> LONG STEM and CURLED LEAVES

AC Elimination:

Based on the above, we know if it has curled leaves it will have to have white flowers. Thus we need to eliminate any AC that has NO WHITE FLOWERS as an option. This means that D & E are booted for sure.

A - It has white flowers, green flag, and thorny seedpods (YELLOW FLAG!!!). Now we must ask ourselves, do the thorny seedpods really have to be there? The stimulus does tell us that curled leaves come from thorny seedpods, but not that it was the ONLY way to get the curled leaves. We don't know enough to say for certain that the thorny seedpods are crucial, since we don't know for certain, we cannot properly infer. Thus it is out.

B - White flowers & NO thorny seedpods. Ok sure but for the same reasoning as above, we cannot say for certain that the thorny seedpods ARE NOT responsible for the curled leaves. We don't know enough to say for certain that the thorny seedpods are NOT crucial, since we don't know for certain, we cannot properly infer. Thus it is out.

C- By POE this is correct, but let's back it. White flowers ok great, and lacking FUZZY SEEDS... Yep. Remember, the fuzzy seeds tell us that yes we do have long stems, BUT we cannot have WHITE FLOWERS. Eliminating the fuzzy seedpods would further ensure that we have the white flowers, since there is a gap re long stems (could be attributed to smth else). Thus C is our correct answer.

This question is soooooooo chud core. Like whattttttt???????

Ok. I got lazy, fine! I will be the first to admit it. B, C &E just did not seem to fit the bill in my eyes, they were missing conditionals/elements/just did not work out. Now A &D? Those guys were ok for now...

D - Yes ok fine I got even lazier. You would too!!! Close reading helllloooooooo. Basically, we know Sarah's dog is NOT a dachshund. Ok. He hunts well. Ok! STOP RIGHT HERE. Sarah's dog is NOT a dachshund AND he hunts well. Ok the next sentence better say something good. "Most dachshunds hunt poorly" ARE YOU JOKING!@!!!!! WHAT THAT GOTTA DO W SARAH'S DOG WE ALR KNOW SARAH'S DOG IS NOT A DAUCHSAND!!!!! THIS ISN'T RIGHT AT ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. Scrap production fr. This is going to ruin the world tour. I saw this logic but went with it... why? Bc it had a similar enough structure to the stimulus. I was being lazy...

A - Ugh. This one. Alex loves to golf. OKKKKAYYYY ALEXXX!!! No one in chess club loves to golf. Ok i hope we connect all 3 subjects in the next sentence... better say smth about alex and golf and chess.... "Alex is not in the chess club" o ok. Dang. That is good. Now why is it good?

Stimulus:

Wealth --> /Good

Good Thing --> /Harm

Wealth --> Harm

(A)

Alex --> Golf

Chess Club --> /Golf, Golf --> /Chess Club (CONTRAPOSITIVE HELLOOO LAZY IKDIZZLE)

Alex --> /Chess Club

TLDR: If it doesn't make sense, then IT IS PROBABLY NOT RIGHT. SLOW DOWN. MAP IT OUT. USE CONTRAPOSITIVE. YOU WERE SO SO CLOSE.

Ok in between C & E.

My main issue is that I was using E's potential negative effects for justifying C. Why does the contagious nature of chickenpox scare us if we can cure it? It is like the common flu. Yes we have meds, but that doesn't affect you or me getting sick. If I help you when you are sick, and I get sick, its not the end of the world.

But E? Oh heeeckkk no. If you got ill and I help you with this medicine and this medicine just so happens to allow drug resistant chickenpox... game over. Hindsight 20/20.

TLDR: Don't use ACs to justify other ACs, use similar examples that make sense to you / language to translate the stimulus into a more fun scenario.

Disagreement: Dana is saying that not every educational method should be used with all children and instead, the way a kid is accustomed to learning should be the factor telling us what educational method should be used. Pat is saying no re only using methods where the child's preferred educational method should trump usage of other methods as well.

A - Well yes, nothing says that Dana and Pat necessarily disagree with this

C - Ok but irrelevant

D - Ok but irrelevant

I was in between B and E, ultimately I went with E (begrudgingly). But I can see how I was wrong --

(E) I thought that the educational methods being tailored at times was Pat's main message, and where Dana disagrees. But this is not necessarily true. "Sometimes" is still a quantifier that includes many instances. Dana does not disagree with this take, at best she agrees during all the instances where this is true. Pat also agrees with this take, she never outright says that the preferred methods from kids are not good, but rather that they should also allow flexibility for instances where it is not desirable to use accustomed style of learning.

(B) This is actually Pat's main point. Pat is saying no kids need to learn a bunch of educational methods bc theres tons of skills in demand for them. Dana is saying no they don't need many educational methods, only the ones that work for the kid. There is a focus on rigidity of the rule here.

TLDR: Sometimes is literally some of the time. Some of the time it goes in Dana's favor. Dana would agree with that take.

@sylviatantran380 perfect way of explaining it -- I did not connect the printing error to my AC.

I was in btwn D & E

Stimulus is asking us why ppl who are in person spend less time prepping dinner than adults that do wfh

A - irrelevant

B - irrelevant not talking abt brekkie, we care abt dinner

C - irrelevant

E - In person ppl not planning dinner doesn't help us explain the gap, if anything it widens it

D - In person ppl eat takeout more often, so the time prepping meals reduces -- provides a resolution

A- not supported, we do not know what insects are attracted to or not attracted to wilting poppy flowers.

C- we do not know

D - we do not know, nothing supports

E - we do not know

B - yes bc last sentence, it tells us that they will wilt bc it triggers same substance as pollinating

I chose B like everyone else has stated. I am adding this in t the mix since I am in a sense using this as my WAJ.

B is incorrect because I thought that the shopping mall was implied to not be part of the local economy, this is wrong, but tricky to see. The stimulus is talking about how it should boost the economy, given that so much activity is happening in the mall.

The second part of the stimulus is talking about how there actually is not much of an increase in the economic activity in the mall, and that we do not see much else occurring. If the mall is expected to boost the economy, but doesn't, what can explain this alleged deficit of expectation vs reality?

Well, a plausible one is that the mall has taken the majority of the dollar circulation share in the local economy. Meaning, that the money spent at the mall would have been spent somewhere else. The money shuffle is happening and the mall is holding a lot of the cards that would have been in other shops around town. Tourists arriving is something that we are banking on, and is not necessarily something that is ensured by the stimulus. We should have never considered B as an option bc WHO is bringing up tourists????? WE are. Well, WE are also wrong. That's ok. We learn <3

TLDR: Refer back to stimulus, if AC gives us major non-stimulus assumptions/factors to consider, re-center yourself and re-read the stimulus/other ACs before picking your answer.

connecting the gap --> why are miracles involved in this conditional? Bridge it.

Ok so it is actually a lot simpler than what it looks like. Do not panic, take it as it is. Clear head.

Stimulus: Construction contractors have two ways of collecting fees; fixed percentage of contractor's costs and fixed amount of profit over and above costs.

The fixed percentage fees - higher costs = higher profits. This is where you can expect final costs to be above original estimates. More common in fixed percentage fees.

Paradox: Why are higher prices more common if the contract is fixed profit?

A - Wrong because it does not help relate to anything in the stimulus (even if we did not understand the stimulus)

B - The government was never involved in this. Let's not bring them in now

C - This does not tell us anything re issues with cost discrepancy? Irrelevant

E - This does not help us. If the initial estimate is exaggerated, then the high costs of the bills would not have a large discrepancy (bc the ridiculous estimate is only 2K off vs 20K off)

D - Correct. If you are billed per amount of materials, you can take a look and see if you are paying a suspicious amount. You cannot do that with a fixed cost because it is a fixed, no variability.

My main tip for these types of qs is to bridge the gap for real. We see that origin is mentioned in the conclusion, how did we get there. That is the mindset I used to get to E.

I got this right lowkey on a whim, but I want to think it out so I can come back and look at it again should I need to.

Stimulus: Successful play will be movie or revived. Unsuccessful play so it gets to do neither.

B, C, D - It don't matta partna. We dgaf about the play fr. They just describe failures of the play and how they can recoup. A lot of this is not even mentioned in the stimulus in the slightest so we cannot pick them as ACs since we don't have enough of the information.

A - If the stimulus does not even mention this as an option why would i pick it. It is saying OR as in one OR the other, AND was never an option (in this line of thinking, not in lawgic terms).

E - My only good option, and yea it begs the question... If something is not successful (sufficient condition) then that doesn't mean that there are other things that can contribute to ensuring the adaptation or revival occurs. We do not have a rule that tells us that if something is not successful, then we get nothing. It is implied (???at best) but not explained.

I was feeling chopped and unc on this question. I misunderstood where the last sentence literally tells you that no one will be happy (overstatement, LSAT gods pls do not come for me). So using the normal logic as one does on this exam, if faculty is happy then the students are pissed and vice versa based on the last sentence. UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Brain fatigued...