My theory for why B is right in #23: "Most commonly displayed" reactions refers to the two-thirds party that offered 40-50% as well as the 4/100 group that gave less than 20%. If this is the case, then of course this would mean we could use "most" commonly displayed, because you have 66% (the 2/3 group) in addition to the 4/100 people reacting against rational self-interest.

Why can we assume that the 40-50% group is part of the "most" group? The passage states that what a "fair offer" is is 50%, therefore that would mean that anything below this threshold is unfair, even if its a "bit" unfair aka 40-50% group. You can assume that offering unfair offers conflicts with rational self-interest because the third paragraph explains this, specifically about why proposers offer high-offers. According to this paragraph, offering unfair offers is against rational self-interest.

Let me know what you guys think.

can someone explain 16? Receptive is the last one I would have guessed. The author spends almost the entire passage stating how the pin factory model is completely different than the mainstream economic thought of the invisible hand, almost as if he is negative towards it. he literally says the invisible hand (current mainstream) is different. so i put answer B, uncertainty. how in any way does he seem receptive of the pin factory model into mainstream thought?

D is wrong because it says the number of auditors per account has increased SLOWLY over the past 100 years. Ok, maybe back then there were 10 auditors, now there are 20. However the stimulus says there are enormous amounts of transactions NOWADAYS. So the number of auditors per transaction could and probably is much lower per transaction. For instance, 10 auditors for 10,000 100 years ago, and 20 auditors for 1,000,000 transactions now. In which case it would actually weaken our claim.

Reason why D is wrong. Because raising tobacco is an action, they raise the tobacco, but then dont smoke it. then you have "KNEW how to brew alcohol" not "brewed alcohol," so there is no alcohol being produced, but then it jumps right to "and not drink it" even though there is technically no alcohol produced to drink, whereas in the first statement there is actually tobacco but they just didnt smoke it.

I dont get why C is wrong. If we negate it, that means that consumer demand for gasoline CAN increase without causing prices for gas to increase, and this would wreck our argument because it would open up room for an alternative reason for why the gas prices increased, thus the government may not be responsible

I can see what JY is talking about but i feel like hes missing a point about why answer choice D is wrong. D says sewage sludge that contains high concentrations of heavy metals. We were talking about sewage sludge that has these heavy metals in general, and D is only talking about a subset of them (the ones with high concentrations). Anyone else agree this is a big reason why its wrong?

so isnt there a prostitution paradox? you can ask for money, and you can hook up with who you want, but you cant do it for money. idk something to think of

i dont get why A in the last one is wrong and jy doesnt explain it

thanks guys

for D i was thinking the exact same thing that JY said. Who said I need to buy a commericial fertilizer? Why dont I buy a bunch of cows and make my own fertilizer that contains those macro-nutrients

I think for A an effective explanation is that A is saying MOST viewers tune in to the first episode because of a tv shows ad...ok, so what?...our conclusion is saying that the producers ad would have more effectively attracted viewers who would watch more than one episode than the ad they chose to go with.

An example. Lets say only 100 people are alive to watch the show. A is saying 90 of those 100 people watch a show's first episode because of its ad.

Now our conclusion is saying that the ad we chose to go with is only going to bring in 10 people who will watch the show past the first episode because the ad we played does not represent the show at all, whereas the ad that the producers wanted would bring in around 30-40 people that would watch beyond the first episode. Well, why would the tv producer's ad do this is the question we need to answer. Which is why B is correct because it discreetly describes this. Because the ad that we went with made it seem like The Hobbit was going to be like the original Lord of the Rings but it wasnt and it SUCKED compared to lord of the rings hell no i am not watching the second or third movie, your first movie made it clear that you are phonies and i was expecting the lord of the rings and got this shi* instead.

if you made a trailer (ad) that made is clear how the hobbit is going to be different and its own movie which is why the producers wanted to do, my girlfriend and her friends would all watch it because they love the hobbit books but hated the lord of the rings movies and thought the hobbit was going to be like it

Goddam peter jackson, goddam

anyone else think "throw ragers" when JY said what can i do on a bought boat that i cant do on a rented boat

this should be a 6-star question

do they tell you what time the test will be ending before it starts? for example, "this section will end at 11:30pm"

I eliminated A for a different reason than the one stated by JY. My reasoning was of the use of the word "any" behavior. What if a medical researcher is finding a cure for cancer that ends up in a lot of pain aka suffering first?

Is my reasoning correct to eliminate A?

I was confused on A for a while but figured it out. The reasoning the in original argument says whether or not a person is contradictory and does whatever it is he/she is saying not to do, that does not mean he/she gives good advice. Answer A says country A tells country B to disarm, but country B says "why dont you disarm then." If answer A was correct, it would say something like "country A tells country B to disarm, but they themselves do not disarm"

I almost had a heart attack