Anybody still interested in studying? I know this post is a bit old but I am planning to take the Sept. 2016 administration in Seoul. Would be great to join or start a study group!

You can also think of it this way...

The conclusion says that it should "never" go unpunished --> which means 100% of the time

However, "rountinely go unpunished" is only one part/type of the all the instances of "unpunish"ment (is that even a word? haha...) You can't simply justify 100%/never allowing something just because one type/instance of it results in chaos!

Therefore, this boils down to an evidence flaw in which some evidence against a claim is taken to prove the claim as true!

Hope this helps man

@ Mejia - glad to be of help mate!

Just focus on the last sentence and you should be able to get to answer D pretty easily...

At first I was thinking the answer would bank of the "most" overlap in the first sense and thus checked answer C... (given you can only infer "some" from a "most" and "most" overlap) but this wrongly links the last sentence to the items dicussed before the "however"

Thus, the correct answer has to deal with the last sentence, staring with however... you can easily diagram this.

tropical fish + (NOT) exotic birds --> gerbils

independently owned pet store --> (NOT) sell gerbils

By linking the two above, you can get:

independently owned pet store --> (NOT) sell gerbils --> (NOT) tropical fish / exotic birds

The paraphrase of the chain above is answer D!

"but" in this case functions as an "and"

Hope this helps!

Over the past few months, I've been practicing skimming and then attacking questions for the first 2 passages... basically I have an attack plan to read and answer questions for the first 2 passages within 15 minutes (skipping up to 2 detail-except questions, and then spending the remaining 20 minutes for the last 2 passages).

For easier RC sections I now have up to 5 minutes to check over some questions I guessed earlier, and at least 2/3 minutes to check over 1/2 hard questions

This is my plan of attack:

I spend the first minute of the 35 minutes quickly reading the first few lines of each passage to determine my passage order... I usually tackle the following passages as the first 2:

1) Non-humanity diversity (non-art/literature/film) - talks about women's issues, african american and native american racial equality issues, immigrant issues

2) Legal - talking about some system flaw or the way in which the law helps ppl

3) Science - typical dense passages with a lot of details (I basically skim over the details, noting the conclusions and main ideas discussed)

The last 2 I do are:

4) Legal - talks about some theory or reasoning behind the law (very dense passages and hard to understand even if you do spend 5 minutes reading...)

5) Standard humanity - talks about literature, art, economics, politics, philosophy, etc... even if it talks about some african american or asian american achieving/creating sth great

6) Science - ecology or evolution... these tend to be more humanity like in that it talks about some social issues in which something impacts the well-being or understanding of human beings

The reason for doing numbers 1 through 3 first is that their main points and passage structures/flows are quite predictable.. This is why I can skim through 10-30% percent of the passage and still get most of the questions right (the time consuming part is to go back to the question to answer detail questions.. but even if you read in detail, you won't remember it anyway... thus its a waste of time!!!)