I initially did NOT get D, I chose E, not because I felt really good about it but because I was having trouble understanding why D was wrong and I kinda just guessed. But NOW, I can see that D is obviously the right answer if you just re-word it. Take "takes for granted that some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective" and change it to "assumes that historians who (purport) claim they are objective, write historical work that embodies prejudices." I am not quite sure why the original answer choice was so hard for my brain to comprehend but re-writing it this way and swapping out "takes for granted" for "assume" I think reveals the flaw the author included. The author says we can't accept that these historians are objective because there are some examples of historians being prejudiced; so naturally this flaw is.... assuming that (in general) self-proclaimed objectives historians are writing prejudiced work.

Yeah if anyone has a recording and would like to share that would be amazing!!

@ said:

Can anyone share a recording or give a bit more insight?

Thank you!

This took me literally 30 minutes to talk through to myself (probably would skip on a real test) but I think I finally get it. I didn't think of B as the correct AC because I wasn't thinking about the argument in terms of it mainly being about calling out the principle in the first sentence (which is the conclusion). so basically I just didn't identify the conclusion correctly hahahah fuck. I was just thinking about how people could achieve happiness according to the author (pursuing personal excellence and undergoing personal change) so I picked A, but I get why it is wrong. Okay SO, B is correct because it is saying that those who are NOT dissatisfied (accepting of themselves) are less likely to pursue excellence. If those ppl are less likely to pursue excellence then they CAN'T be genuinely happy ... because that's what the author says. And if those people can't be happy, then the principle in the beginning is obviously wrong if its goal was to have a society full of happy people...which would make the argument correct.

Summary:

Some think ppl should accept themselves <3 instead of being dissatisfied with their own abilities. This principle is BAD if the goal is to have a happy society. BECAUSE no one can be happy if they aren't pursuing personal excellence and undergo personal change....

AC's:

A. we already know those who are willing to change could find happiness; thats what the passage said...wrong.

B. Those who are accepting of themselves are less likely to PPE.... CORRECT, because if people who are accepting of themselves are likely to PPE (the negation of this AC) then the principle wouldn't actually be bad because that means they'd be achieving happiness....which would make the author's whole argument wrong. THIS IS IT!! I hope this helps.

C. wrong. if this was true, no one could ever change, and this whole argument would fall apart.

D. Wrong. feels too opinion-y

E. pretty obviously wrong.

@ wow that was super helpful!!! I think trying to employ the specific "short-cuts" has been holding me back too but since most of the training books suggest them I've just kinda been trying to power through??? Do you have ANY tips for RC strategy at all?? Literally anything would help I am fucked for RC and I fluctuate in scores HEAVILY

What about the people who would have taken the time to attend if they had seen the post w/ the info in time? ...or do those people not deserve to be "rewarded"? lmao weird

@ said:

@ said:

Ok not to be rude but literally who cares if the moderators asked that the info not be shared. It's kind of annoying to keep info like this behind a pay wall but if anyone who went to the seminar is willing to share the info ($$$) please message me.

They specifically said not to because they want to reward the people who took the time to attend. Plus, sorry, not gonna do Dave and Jon dirty like that.