I took no MARK of success to mean no INDICATOR of success, as I think most people would. 6/5 difficulty
I initially picked A. Now I understand the logic for D but doesn't this answer attack the conclusion? The conclusion states "people hold onto beliefs even in the absence of credible evidence" and D is correct because they actually DID get credible evidence (confirmation of their beliefs).
I thought for weaken we weren't supposed to attack the conclusion.
#help
"recoup costs associated with developing a comedic routine" does not mean being paid back money that others made from stolen jokes. The definition of recoup is to regain something lost or expended. The answer is saying that it's possible for the comedian to regain money that was spent on developing the routine because the norms prevent others from monetizing/exploiting it.
Look to paragraph 2. I'm not sure what costs would be associated with developing a comedic routine but I know it takes weeks/months and there would be a cost of living associated with that time. If (no norms in place) a day after releasing the routine a bunch of other people start using the material, the comedian will probably not recoup the costs associated with developing the routine. Social norms prevent this.
I was writing a full defense of A which really helped me see why C is right.
C says "what little (already biased) information we have to go off of MAY be false (and therefore further flawed)." I hate having to make an assumption like that for an answer but everything else either weakens or is irrelevant. Lesson learned when it comes to picking the best of the worst!
I had a hard time with "consistent art style" in the correct AC in Q18.
We know he veered from the traditional path, but what if he did that in a consistent way? In fact, the only examples we have are him focusing on the human form and then this sculpture. The correct answer for Q21 actually says there WAS some consistency, regardless of material used. The vague "evolution" in the last paragraph could mean finding another way to capture the human form.
I think the correct answer depends on an unclear definition of "artistic style"and assuming it had less meaning to him. I guess E is worse but I rationalized that his curiosity about metals was him using an aesthetic approach to scientific inquiry (still, not very supported).
I wish there was a guideline for how much to rely on structure vs content for PMOR questions. Some really boil down to "A -> B, B or C, not A," etc as you move through the stimulus and ACs. This one didn't seem to line up that way but the literal reason of the argument was matched.
The AC is clear when you sum the stimulus to "new became available, old less popular".
A- the OLD became LESS available (more expensive), new more popular. This would match if stimulus was "printed books are becoming less available, so we moved to audio books"
C- new became available, old less popular
I disagree with "traces" being relevant. Traces and spikes are subjective terms. Maybe a trace of sulfur dioxide from volcanic eruption is a few ppm. An instrument has been detecting 0 until the traces enter the instrument's detection area and cause a "spike" of 20ppm.
For the other 2 negatives of D- The argument itself uses Earth as an analogy so I didn't think this was too bad. Then, to me, the amount of years considered in "past" holds as much weight as the "direct vs indirect" thing in A. It's not concrete but opens up a possibility to say we COULD conclude it's from volcanic activity, activity from the past (however long ago).
Ultimately A still does a good job tying directly to a premise "no active volcanoes have been identified." I wrote it off because I thought it was attacking the fact that sulfur dioxide data exists.
I almost feel like #5 AC E requires outside knowledge.
From the passage, we know jurors don't have the evidence to make a decision that's "justified" in the broader sense (EX this person committed 100 crimes so whether they're guilty or innocent in this instance doesn't really matter, they're guilty overall). But AC E says jurors wouldn't have the reasons why those in the legal system (police, prosecutors) decided to bring a case against a defendant.
I didn't assume to equate the part where they decide to form a case (per AC) to the verdict part of the process (per passage). Without prior legal knowledge, I feel like it's reasonable to think these are two separate concepts and that the passage almost implies the opposite of AC E - jurors actually ONLY have the reasons why "a case" (this specific case) was brought.
After reading other comments, I get that whether they even want to try a trivial case may be based on things outside of the immediate instance. But without understanding this (which, I feel, is a little beyond commonsense), it made AC E seem like it focused on a different concept. At that point, D didn't seem too bad - "We elect judges to interpret [laws]. The jury is unelected" - AC D Jury may not have sufficient expertise.
I disagree with the video's reasoning for A being incorrect so let me know if this is an incorrect thought process- A is incorrect because we don't know Lyle's opinion on if the pedagogical (teaching) value is different. We know he says it remains valuable but not whether that's at the same level or different.
I didn't pick C because I didn't think it showed "performs that act to benefit them" enough. It's a stretch but what if Betsy was changing it because she wants to buy the house one day? What if she just can't stand the thought of something breaking down? These seem silly but I feel like we're trained not to make assumptions that aren't explicitly stated (EX logical opposites).
I was thrown off by 3 because lines 22-23 describe the systems as "rigid and fixed". That seemed opposite to "unstable".
As I'm working my way through the lessons, I noticed the Prep Tests will show how many questions I've already encountered on that given test. Does 7sage ensure a number of tests are left untouched so you get a sense of a real practice test? I want to make sure they'll be tests where I don't already have an answer memorized.
The wording for a lot of PT 60 is so weird. I actually had the correct rationale to choose AC A but didn't because "can bear" tripped me up. Like idk if they can bear it (handle it) but they're responsible nonetheless!