D is a mish mash!! Who knows, even if Beta-Glucans can't kill cancer cells, maybe Immune-cell activity can result in the killing of cancer cells.

Definitely misread the conclusion as saying that the generation of television viewers while watching television exercise their imagination less frequently. That's why I ended up choosing E because if you negate it, then it makes you wonder "oh, well if this generation of TV viewers also think about what they see, then there's no guarantee that they do so less frequently than the radio generation did right?" But the problem with this is that you still have to assume that TV viewers thought about what they saw just as much as the Radio gen did and also assume that "thinking about what they see" = "exercising imagination"

So that's why E is wrong, and D is right because if there's absolutely nothing else for this generation of TV viewers that can incite exercising of imagination, then yeah, the TV gen exercises their imagination less frequently because there are less opportunities to do so.

It does make me wonder though. Does this mean that we have to assume that there weren't any other mediums that increased the frequency of people exercising their imagination? Just because the gap that was left by the radio's absence hasn't been filled, who's to say that there isn't a combination of things like podcasts + books in the TV gen that had people exercise their imagination to the frequency that radio did in its generation? #help#help#help

In my initial run through, I was almost astonished at the lack of support the premise provided for the conclusion that it threw me off. I should have realized that for SA/PSA questions it can be as cookie cutter as just simply providing P → C or the contrapositive /C → /P. I think I was expecting something like the previous SA question in this section where the AC isn't as cookie cutter.

I was trying to map out the conditional logic and look for an answer choice that addresses the gap, and C seemed like the only AC that seemed remotely close to a conditional statement that I thought I needed. I think I also misinterpreted the word "universality." Somehow I understood as "most" societies having money. Like 90%.

But if I understand it as a 100% of societies having money, then A becomes a great answer choice. If some societies were so isolated that they were never influenced by their neighbors, and money is present in EVERY single society, then it's definitely probable that the concept of money originated independently of neighboring societies' influences + ideas.

Same here, I had to choose a testing center as well instead of online. Maybe they just haven't updated it?

@ said:

Can you let me know what, if any, instructions are provided in their addendum sections?

It simply says "This section is optional. Other addenda can be attached here, if desired."

@ I think the problem with A is that it assumes that an attack by a predator is ALWAYS accompanied by a loud noise or unexpected movement. I sympathize with you because to me, it seems like a reasonable assumption to make.

If I really try to nitpick, I would say that the prey would actually expect the predator's movements because they'd probably know instinctively that they're being hunted. For example, a rabbit might expect a cheetah to move a certain way when hunting the rabbit. This doesn't change the fact that the cheetah would end up nabbing the rabbit regardless.

@ I'm not sure if there's always a conclusion in a RRE/Paradox question like there is for a stimulus that contains an argument (Weakening/Strengthening/SA/NA/most questions on LR).

I think PT87.S2.Q2 is a unique RRE question in that the Biologist straight up acknowledges the paradox: "it is hard to see how playing dead can have survival value in this situation."

Instead, RRE/Paradox questions seem to provide context/facts/information about a situation, and introduces a puzzling new phenomenon in that context. For PT87.S2.Q2, it would look something like this:

Context/facts/info: Whether or not the prey play dead, predators eat their prey.

Puzzling new phenomenon: Some small animals play dead anyways when caught by predators.

^^^ This is usually what it would look like. This should makes us think, "ok well if the predators are going to eat the prey anyways, there's GOTTA be another reason why these small animals play dead right?" This often means finding an alternative explanation other than what is already mentioned in the stimulus. Hope this helps.

@ said:

If the school asks about speeding tickets, I would very succinctly explain exactly what you just did. The rule of thumb is when in doubt, disclose. It may turn out to be info that they don’t really need, but the chance of it being an issue when you try to take the bar isn’t worth the risk, imho.

Makes sense, thanks for your input!

#help

Wouldn't answer choice A's conditional translation be "If dissatisfied with merely habitual assent to widely held beliefs → people become angry" ? I chose A because I thought it linked up the premise to the conclusion correctly. Isn't "when" a group 1 conditional indicator?