Instead of looking solely at structure, take a step back and see how did the author of the stimulus get from premise to conclusion. this will allow you to see gaps or general flaws in the argument

good point!

Q3- strengthen

A- no this weakens

B- does nothing, were concerned w humans anyway

C- nah wouldnt help bc author doesnt include problems w transporting waste

*D- yes strengthens bc emphasizes unpredictability + think of the risks of contamination and geological factors

E- no this weakens

Q4- passage recognition

A- Not true- wastewater is presented as a risk to drinking water.

B- no, we know very little about areas less deep than 300m

C-not mentioned in passage

D-not true, para 1 says areas are saturated w salt water, so salt is already there

*E- yes its in paragraph 3 (underground strata doesn’t “flow entirely under the influence of gravity” and is influenced by subterranean pressure gradients)

Q5- inference

A- no not short term, no time discussed

B- no obsolete not accurate

*C- yes, paragraph 1 (Sentence 4)

D- not backed by passage, passage says it is unpredictable

E- we dont know levels of waste

Q6- recognition

*A-yes para 1

B- no not discussed

C- no we dont know ab new

D- not mentioned

E- not mentioned

Q7- inference

A- no there are permeable layers and impermeable layers

*B- yes accurate from para 1 and 2

C- no

D- not accurate

E- wrong

Q1-main point

A- not mentioned

B- not mentioned

C- Para 1 says industries turn to deep well injection, not fully replaced it. Just 1 method!

*D-correct answer b/c it captures entire passage + structure (problems of deepwell)

E- true but author’s mainpoint is the problems w/ deep well injection

Q2- inference

A-passage doesn’t say this (only says landfills n stuff r expensive, not unsafe)

B- no, para 1 says it's not cost effective beyond 1800 m

*C- yes! Para 3 talks about it

D- passage doesn't discuss this

E-no, drinking water wells are shallower than waste injection (at least 300 m)

Passage 1 - Deep well injections

P1:

structure: Introduces phenomenon

Content: industries use deep well injection as an alt. method of waste disposal b/c cost-effective, but controversy exists

P2

Structure: describes 2 problems

Content: problem 1- leaks happen & allow noxious chemicals in drinking water

Problem 2- mistakes by personnel workers

P3

Structure: describes 3rd problem

Content- can’t predict how the area’s geological features will affect the injected wastes.

P4

Structure- judgment by author

Content- reiterates that deep well injection has many problems, but will continue to become popular b/c cheap and efficient

I fell for answer A, but it is definitely wrong because Xavier says few people want to sit outside and breathe shitty fumes while they eat. This is a specific scenario. Answer A poses a general statement for few people wanting to sit outside while eating. It omits the other details. And Answer E is fair game (even though I dislike this question and banish it to the depths of hell) it can be inferred If both believe the restaurant was unlikely to succeed, then it's entirely reasonable to conclude both felt it was a risky venture (anything likely to end in failure is, by definition, a risky move).

Listen, I'm not perfect but this was like a 3-star question for me. So let me share how I got to right answer. I feel like a lot of people struggle with the abstract answer choices. So we should all get in the habit of plugging in concepts to make them less abstract. We can understand abstract answers by replacing the abstract language with concrete language from the stimulus. This is how I did it: answer choice E

showing that something that would be impossible (Brillo Boxes being considered a work of art) if a particular thesis were correct (appearance alone determines whether something is art or not) is actually true (if it were true that appearance alone is the factor, then brillo boxes would not be art)

I got B (correct AC) and this was my thought process:

Stimulus:

conclusion is that abstract paintings are aesthetically pleasing. How do we know this? The premise discusses a psychological study where participants were shown expressionist painting and preschool painting. Most participants chose the expressionist painting as aesthetically better.

Okay let's try to predict the Necessary Assumption. We don't know what paintings were shown. I was thinking, what if they showed ugly ass paintings that kids made and then remarkable work from artists. Answer Choice B points this out.

Answer choice B rules out the possibility that the work of kids were totally f-ing ugly. If we negate this answer and say that most of the kid's works were aesthetically displeasing, the study which ranked the expressionist paintings as consistently better wouldn't hold up!

My advice is to use POE to get rid of irrelevant answers like Answer choice C and then use negation test to rule out tempting answers like answer choice A

We are told that complete understanding leads to complete forgiveness. While that is technically a causal claim, it has a conditional dimension, too. If one thing leads to another all the time, the first thing also guarantees the second. So, complete understanding guarantees complete forgiveness. But we can't completely understand ourselves. So what? That doesn't allow us to conclude we can't completely forgive ourselves, because that would be an illegal negation.

Answer choice analysis:

(A) Here it is, right out of the gate. If the abstract language is tricky from you, replace it with concrete language from the stimulus: "treats the failure to completely understand yourself as if it’s the only way to completely forgive yourself."

(B) Tricky! But what, in this argument, is presented as "necessary for an action to occur?" Nothing! As soon as we realize this, we can eliminate this one.

(these are info from MP that helped me!)

We are told that complete understanding leads to complete forgiveness. While that is technically a causal claim, it has a conditional dimension, too. If one thing leads to another all the time, the first thing also guarantees the second. So, complete understanding guarantees complete forgiveness. But we can't completely understand ourselves. So what? That doesn't allow us to conclude we can't completely forgive ourselves, because that would be an illegal negation.

Great analysis

No its too weak. You can not say the author had mild disapproval when that mf was reading the heck out of the constructiv darwinist group. He rlly said hey u guys suck butt and even Darwin disagrees with u. also u stink bc look at nonadaptive and Dinosaur examples

Emphatic disagreement = clear/full disagreement. the author presents 2 types of evidence against the views (paleontology example and nonadaptive) and also in the intro says how constructivists straight up contradict Darwin

Dependable ---> all assets

natural resources not mentioned (not all assets) -----> /dependable

Prediction: contrapositive is the correct AC

C is correct

B is wrong, we don't know the views of all the economists and naturalists. trap answer that I fell for initiallyyyy

(C) is correct. In wetlands, wet conditions would make the area home to insects that eat mosquito larvae. That would keep mosquito populations down, and thus reduce the risk of disease. When the drought cuts down on predators, the mosquitoes might have a better chance to survive and spread disease.

The question asks for something that "helps to justify" a belief, making this a Strengthen question. It's useful to note that what's being strengthened is merely a belief and not necessarily an entire argument. So, there may not be any direct evidence, and the correct answer will have to provide that missing evidence.

D: So, even if the washing machines don't kill the bacterium, staff are under strict orders to use dryers at a temperature that is hot enough to kill the bacterium. That would thus remove the risk and add support to the officials' claim.

Necessary Assumption: The author concludes that affection plays the same role in both !!!!chimp and human communities!!!! The evidence is two-fold: 1) When a chimp shows affection toward others, the other chimps will help protect that chimp, and 2) When a human shows affection toward others, that human will help protect those others.

Step 3: Make a Prediction

The role of affection certainly seems similar. In both communities, it provokes a protective nature. However, the author makes a subtle but significant shift when describing the two communities. In human communities, the one who shows affection is the one who protects others. In the chimp communities, the one who shows affection is protected by the other chimps. That's not the same thing. The author assumes a connection between these two events, namely that being protected by others is related to providing protection to others.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(B) is correct. Negation test, if affection is not reciprocated, the chimp who feels affection is being protected by others but is not, in turn, providing protection to the others. That would not be the same as what humans do, and the author's argument would be ruined. The author must assume otherwise-that affection is reciprocated, and others feel affection toward the chimp, prompting that chimp to be human-like and protect those others

Generally in inferences questions, softer language is preferred. That is not a valid reason to strike out the correct answer. So I am not sure what you mean by this technique you are employing?

for reference: Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The correct answer will fill in the blank at the end of the stimulus. That blank concludes a line of thought, so it will be supported by the information that precedes it. That makes this an Inference question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

The author begins by describing two groups of people: those who avoid unpleasant truths and dislike confrontation, and those who prefer to hear the truth no matter what. The author uses this to set up a hypothetical claim: What if people in the first group (those who avoid unpleasant truths) treated others the way they like to be treated?

Step 3: Make a Prediction

If the first group treated everybody the way they like to be treated, then they would avoid telling others unpleasant truths. All of that unpleasantness would be withheld, and confrontation would be avoided. That would suit them just fine. However, this is completely opposite of what the second group of folks want, which is pure openness: nothing gets withheld. So, if the first group just did things their own way, it's logical to deduce that such actions would disappoint people in the second group.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(B) matches the predication and is correct.

D is wrong because what a country "should consider" is irrelevant to what a country ought to do as outlined in the stimulus (not sign the agreement)

Think of it this way, D applied to the stimulus says to consider effects on the economy right? once considered, someone could still vote yes or no. It doesn't lead to immediately saying no unlike B.

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The correct answer, "if [it] is assumed," will logically complete the argument. That makes this a Sufficient Assumption question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

The author concludes (it follows) that critics are mistaken: Not all legitimate art has a concern for beauty. The evidence is that some legitimate art can arouse anger, and all such art calls for intervention in the world.

Step 3: Make a Prediction

As is typical with Sufficient Assumption questions, this argument hinges on Mismatched Concepts. By the evidence, it can be deduced that some legitimate art calls for intervention. However, the conclusion suddenly brings up concern for beauty, which is not logically connected to anything in the evidence. The author assumes a connection, namely that art that calls for intervention is not concerned with beauty.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(D) matches the prediction.

for A the location of nest does not affect whether they glided or lifted from the ground, both ways allow them to get to the nest anyway

If you negate it, it would destroy the proposed solution

Line 35

agreed! i got -0 bc of low res and idek what was going on

Busted my arse to understand foundational lessons