Agreed. What makes E wrong is the fact it does not count as an "ADDITION to current copyright law," which is what Q25 is asking for. E (research exemption) already exists, so it cannot be considered an addition.

Several users here are arguing that B and E are the same, and I disagree. B is more narrow in scope (prohibited to users who are NOT academics -- so basically ONLY academics), while E is less narrow ("Internet users engaged in research" can include academics, like B, but also regular people doing leisurely research on their own).

E is wrong not because it is the same as B, but rather because it does not qualify as a "new addition to current copyright law," which is what Q25 asks about.

agreed - i used that strategy to eliminate this as a trap, yet got it wrong

Count me in!

Yeah, no way I would have known that it was allowable for an AC to target only one of two flaws. Now I know.

My exact misunderstanding!

I think the last sentence forces "combat" out because it mentions that these wounds were inflicted upon dead T rexs. If they were just fighting, then they'd prob stop fighting after one of them dies. But if they continued after the T rex was dead to the point that it even now has teeth marks on skeleton, then that supports the cannibalism theory. I agree it could be both - perhaps they started fighting, then got hungry/got cannibalistic. But the evidence is more "post-death" (teeth marks on dead t rex skeleton-- pro cannibalism theory) than "pre-death" (perhaps teeth marks on flesh and untouched skeleton -- pro fighting theory). Hope this helps!

This is excellent, thank you!

Yes! The only questions I got wrong in this whole set were from this passage!

This isn't an argument with premise and conclusion. It's just a collection of statements/premises. Expect this to be the case for almost all MBT and MSS questions. The "conclusion" would the answer choice.

interested!

It most accurately means that "there exist people with very different dietary needs from each other."

You can diagram this stim as follows:

P1=Most fad diets → prescribe small set of nutrients to everyone

P2=There exist people with very different dietary needs from each other (AKA everyone → NOT same exact dietary needs)

So from this you can conclude that Most fad diets → will fail to satisfy the dietary needs of some people (at least 1!)

Yes you articulated my thought process exactly! This was very clever.

interested!

.

same

Amazing achievement! So so proud. How well would you say your immediate impression after an exam matched your actual performance?

I'm currently 165-173 but I never quite feel fully confident about how I scored after an exam, even when I get a 170+. I find that I almost instinctively flag a question for BR, even if only just to review an answer choice I didn't fully grasp during the timed test despite the fact that I know that answer isn't better than the one I chose. For example, during PR questions, if I see that C matches the structure perfectly, I will move on but still flag that question review D and E just to bring myself from 95% confidence to 100%.

I guess my question is - How/did you ever develop that internal barometer of confidence where you just know that you have done well or that it is OK to move on from a question without being 100% confident in your answer.

I hope that makes sense and thank you so much for any insight you can offer!

That's correct

mastered LR and LG, but bruh RC just keeps whooping my a..

Right, for Simon, we cannot infer the counterfactual (if settlement were less cost effective). Whereas in answer choice E, it is acceptable to infer the contrapositive of J's statement (if they had expected to win).

Silly me for assuming "residents" included individuals AND entities.

I had this same concern over "high-traffic." Like David, I interpreted high-traffic areas to mean multi-modal traffic (foot,car,etc), but in terms of the "sets" issue--"high-traffic" seem to be the set most prone to accidents/relevant to the argument ("low-traffic" areas would seem too ineffectual for this argument), so any observations made here about walking activity would strengthen or weaken the argument. Bc it mentions that more ppl in this set use crosswalks, this presents an alternative explanation. This is what helped give me extra comfort, though I only accepted this rationale bc the other answer choices were comparably subpar.

Nailed it! "It is not necessary to assume what would have happened. It is only necessary to assume what did happen." It is for that very reason -- i.e., going beyond the stimulus / supporting the argument via new info (in this case, a hypothetical that indeed indicates an intent to mislead) -- that makes this answer choice more of a strengthener than necessary assumption.

great catch!

.

Sooo subtle wow