tbh i didnt know what the question stem was asking but now i know that its talking about a control group when assessing this situation. c makes sense

CRITICS OF THE FIRST VIEW!!!!!

omg the word could made me get this wrong

@ethand479 had the same hesitation with B but after going thorugh the rest of the ACs, B seemed to be the best one

Woah

the stim says "very little" not completely without

ALMOST fell for D but didnt

i thought it was an I.M conclusion so i picked A😭

Omggggg yes ofc she doesn’t say or imply that it’s effective🫠

@Blossom anything works for me! maybe discord or something?

@SimHira yesss I would love to be added

wE onLy kNoW oF oNe eXaMpLe... give me a break

dooney county is not flat. they built terraces on farmland in dooney county to prevent soil erosion but soil erosion is not a problem on flat land. so clearly, dooney county building terraces with the purpose of preventing soil erosion shows that it is not flat.

@AndyTzul no there's not word or concept being used in two different ways

@MichaelWright Thanks Michael! This is great advice and I will definitely try this :)

a) Overall, people who are employed are working fewer hours each day. explains it. Yeah, overall, people who are employed around the globe are working fewer hours, so they don't have enough time during their shift to get injured.

b) A decrease in the demand for products has reduced the pressure on workers to meet production quotas and deadlines. Less pressure, less injury.

c) Some of the most dangerous industries have had especially big declines in employment. Makes sense. If some of the most dangerous industries have had especially big declines in employment, then it would follow that the % of workers injured on the job has also decreased, since there aren't many workers to even get injured.

d) There has been a general decline in the resources devoted to workplace safety. This doesn't explain the surprising paradox cus if there's a general decline in the resources devoted to workplace safety, wouldn't the % (general) of workers injured on the job increase??? CORRECT ANSWER.

e) Inexperienced workers have lost their jobs at higher rates than experienced ones. makes sense because if inexperienced workers lost their jobs, it must be that they were getting injured more frequently and at a higher rate than experienced workers. So when the inexperienced workers lost their jobs, the % of workers injured on the job also decreased.

@aloeimvera thank you! this helped

@jaffri please give me feedback cus i broke this question down after getting it wrong both times. I picked E in my initial try and C in BR.

guys is this explanation good?

conclusion: the literacy critics' view that poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased is false.

why?

because...

premise(s): the lit critics say that a poem can never be accurately paraphrased because a poem is itself the only accurate expression of its meaning, BUT at the same time they say that their own paraphrases of particular poems are accurate.

possible flaws before looking at the Acs:

• its okay if they do it but not when others do it

• they say that only the orig poem itself can express the accurate meaning and then say that their paraphrases of poems are accurate. is their paraphrase expressing the accurate meaning? what if i paraphrase but still express the accurate meaning of the poem?

a) presupposes the falsity of the view that it sets out to refute

the view it sets are to refute is: poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased

• "Presupposes" means the argument just assumes something is true without proving it.

• "Falsity" means the idea is false.

• "The view that it sets out to refute" is the critics’ belief that poems can’t be accurately paraphrased.

so A is saying the argument simply assumes (without real reasoning) that the critics’ belief is false.the argument doesn’t just assume it’s false out of nowhere. Instead, it tries to prove it’s false by pointing out the critics’ contradiction. The flaw is that the argument picks one side of the contradiction to reject without a good reason... not that it assumes from the beginning that the critics’ view is false. so, basically, the argument doesn’t “presuppose” the conclusion; it uses bad reasoning to get there.

b) takes for granted that the main purpose of poems is to convey information rather than express feelings.

• takes for granted = assumes something is true without proving it

• main purpose of poems... (we dont know the main purpose nor is that discussed)

• ...is to convey information rather than express feelings (does accurately paraphrasing express feelings?) this isnt the flaw its not being done in the stim

c) takes for granted that a paraphrase of a poem cannot be useful to its readers unless it accurately expresses a poem's meaning

• is it assuming that a paraphrase of a poem cannot be useful to its readers? idk... like usefulness isnt really a point of discussion its more about accuracy and whether there is the possibility for poems to express their accurate meaning through paraphrasing.

• im gonna leave this open im not 100% certain its the wrong answer

d) provides no justification for favoring one of the literary critics' beliefs over the other.

• doesnt favour any view. i think its just saying that there hyprocrisy.

on second thought, when the author said "their view that poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased is false" it provided legit no reason for saying its false. the critics say two things:

1. a poem can never be accurately paraphrased because a poem is itself the only accurate expression of its meaning.

2. their own paraphrases of particular poems are accurate

conclusion of author: their view that poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased is false (falsifies the first view) on the basis of what??? that the same critics that have this view consider their own paraphrases accurate? That's no viable reason.

e) provides no justification for following one particular definition of "paraphrase"

• i though this was correct but its false.

• theres no clear indication that a definition of "paraphrase" other than the dictionary definition is being used. so this cant be the flaw thats being done in the stimulus.

• its also not flawed to use the dictionary definition of a word, unless we have some reason to use a different definition

@DanyelleTripp-Lumley haha thank youuu aren't they just the cutest?!

@DamiOye thank you!!! need that 160+ in the june test

Don't change your answer from one answer choice to the other unless you can TRUTHFULLY and CONFIDENTLY say why the originally picked answer choice is wrong and why the new one is correct in regards to the specific question!!!!!

G: using someones wireless internet service by strolling by cannot be considered illegal under current laws.

why?

because...

G's reasoning: this situation is much like enjoying music playing on someone's radio as you walk down the street and this isnt illegal.

K: accessing wireless service requires stopping for a considerable length of time, which is not like hearing music while walking by. this is why accessing wireless service could be considered loitering or even harassment.

what is the point at which they both disagree?

G believes that using others wireless internet services is not illegal

K states that when you stop for a considerable length of time, the action for which you are stopping for could be considered loitering or even harassment.

disagree that accessing someone's wireless Internet service while walking down the street...

a) correct. G discusses that using someone else's home wireless Internet service cannot be considered illegal under current laws. K's argument implies that it can be considered illegal under current laws, characterizing it as loitering and harassment which are implicity illegal under current laws.

b) nope! K doesnt talk about tresspassing

c) nope! prohibition is not discussed in either arguments.

d) noope! G doesnt talk about length of time

e) intention is not an issue in either discussions.

conclusion: Eating turmeric, a spice commonly found in curries, probably helps prevent Alzheimer's disease.

why?

because...

premises:

1. More turmeric is consumed per capita in India than in the rest of the world, and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is much lower there than it is worldwide.

2. Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the buildup of amyloid protein plaques in the brain, and studies on animals found that curcumin—a compound found in turmeric—reduces the accumulation of amyloid proteins.

if you have a buildup of amyloid protein plaques in the brain, that is a characterization of Alzheimers. what reduces this buildup?? Curcumin. which is what? curcumin is a compound found in tumeric. so, all in all, tumeric reduces the buildup of amyloid protein plaques in the brain that are evident in people with Alzheimer's, and tumeric reduces this buildup, thereby preventing alzheimers.

Now strengthen!

a) rosemary and ginger??? we're talking about tumeric. we need to strengthen the fact that tumeric aids in preventing alzheimers not another herb/factor/thing. this is wrong.

b) ummmm??? did the stimulus say the buildup of amyloid protein plaques in the brain is the cause?? NO the stim says that the buildup in just a characterization that allows us to see that an individual has alzheimers. this is wrong and doesnt strengthen the argument.

c) this doesnt strengthen the argument. we already know from the stimulus that "More turmeric is consumed per capita in India than in the rest of the world, and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is much lower there than it is worldwide" so this is not really strengthening the argument. also introducing age groups and specifically talking about just a specific age group essentially weakens the argument bc it leaves out the rest of the population. also this answer choice is merely saying that the proportion of people in India that fall within the age group that is prone to developing alzheimers is smaller. this weakens the argument by suggesting that its not tumeric that reduces/prevents the incidence of alzheimers in india but rather the fact that there are just less people in the country who can contract it.

d) this weakens the argument by suggesting that its not curcumin (which is found in tumeric) that aids in reducing the accumulation of amyloid proteins which in turn allows turmeric to be an essential component in helping prevent such a disease, but rather a completey different compound (other than curcumin)

e) this strengthens the argument bc if "eating turmeric, a spice commonly found in curries, probably helps prevent Alzheimer's disease" and the parts of india that have the highest per capital rates of curry consumption have the lowest incidence of alzheimers disease, then it makes sense that tumeric (a spice found in curries) helps prevent and lower alzheimers in india, allowing it to be a country with a lower incidence of the disease than anywhere else worldwide.

The purpose of art is causing debate because if it doesn’t cause debate it’s not considered art.