Have they ever made a mistake like this? So I'm guessing our scores are still correct even though the RC section they uploaded is wrong... Right? Was this the experimental RC?

I can't stop checking either!

What is the Pomodoro method? Sullysmom, I have had the same problem as you also with the difference between my test and blind review. I am really curious if this is normal?

I got very confused with 15.

I just realized I totally read it wrong. I thought it said "when a blackmailer threatens to turn INTO a criminal unless paid money" thinking it meant like "I will hurt you---> (become a criminal) unless you pay me. Because of that I chose C, because it became the victims role to prevent crime when it should be the governments job to prevent crime before it occurs. In this sense the blackmailer is bargaining with the states role by passing it onto the victim. So I thought misusing the 3rd party was referring to the victim.

BUT it says "turn IN a criminal." So it completely makes sense why B is right- if the blackmailer withholds criminal information, this affects the government." Misusing the third party is referring to the government.

Lesson- read VERY carefully!

hmm any time you see something talking about speaking not allowed or truth prohibited from being revealed, or documents banned from being published.. just think about free speech. Now that you saw this you'll probably realize it next time

I agree and I got this wrong. The only thing I can think of is that if we can definitely eliminate the other choices then this is all that is left. ABC are easy to eliminate and then D I guess is wrong because it says archivists "are charged with preserving vital records and documents indefinitely" and we are supposed to infer that if that is someones job, part of it MUST be to determine what is vital and what isn't... aka what is dispensable from what is essential. I don't think it is really fair to force us to assume this because what if it is someone else's job to tell them what is vital, and then their only job is to preserve what they are told?

But I guess later in the passage the author talks about archivists sorting the essential from the dispensable, so from this we can infer that it IS in fact their job. So from there it is just a tiny leap to say that if it is their role now, then it was also their role in the past.

Then E is the only one left. And it has some support because first of all it is weak by saying it "will influence" rather than "determine". And we know they must have some sort of influence because depending on what they decide to save, that is what future generations will have to view the past. Yes, they may also have other means, but it just says influence, so that's okay.

hmm for D on 8 its wrong because capacity does not equal durability?

capacity = maximum amount that something can contain

Durability = ability to withstand damage

the problem is that capacity has a second definition, "the ability/power to do, experience, or understand."

With this definition, durability IS a limitation on the capacity of modern storage media, because the fact that it isn't that durable makes it less "able to work."

So maybe we are not supposed to understand it according to the second definition because the passage is specifically making comparisons between quantity (in this respect, modern technology has a HUGE capacity for storage) and and durability (not so much.)

But we are not psychics and can't expect to know which way we are supposed to interpret a definition. So maybe the REAL reason why D is wrong is because it doesn't mention the authors FINAL conclusion, rather just a sub conclusion.

So its really saying, "given the problem with durability in modern storage media, it is increasingly important for archivists to save only those documents that they believe to have genuine value."

The author acknowledges that this is important when saying "ideally these decisions should be informed by an assessment of the value of each document"... but then goes on to say that this will be virtually impossible because they won't have time to sort them all before they deteriorate.

That should be reflected in the conclusion, and D leaves that part out while A acknowledges the problem.

Lesson I learned from the MP question:

If a passage gives a strategy for how to do something and then emphasizes that this strategy allowed them to do XYZ... then the main point probably has to do with what the strategy led them to, not the strategy itself. Think of the strategy as a premise, THUS XYZ... conclusion. Just like in LR questions, we don't pick a premise for our main point.

A means to an end is just like a premise.

D is not the main point. The passage DOES show that nonfictional narrative can be effectively combined with other genres in a single work.

But why is it wrong?

In getting the main point is is useful to quickly skim the authors opinions.

Well here are the authors opinions-

-The collections are innovative at MANY LEVELS (answer choice D describes ONE level, therefore not covering the whole passage because it leaves out other levels.

In paragraph 2 the author explains 2 of the many levels (confronting linguistic boundaries and addressing politics of identities), then says "this effort manifests itself in the mixed structure" so the whole mixed structure thing is really just explaining HOW they do it, not that they are special BECAUSE of that. It is confusing because there is a LOT of support for the whole mixed structure thing. Much of the next paragraph goes in detail describing how each other the books use the mixed structure, then the author makes a statement about it-

"While this ordering may seem fragmentary and confusing, it is in fact a fully intentional and carefully designed experiment with literary structure."

OK this makes it even more confusing because the author is making a conclusion about the mixed structures. What we have to realize is, it is ACTUALLY a sub conclusion, and a sub- conclusion/ main premise is never the main point.

It is a sub conclusion / main premise because we DO have support for it, but then it goes on to support something else!

"In a sense, this mixing of structures parallels content... The writers employ multi generic and multivocal forms TO EXPRESS THE COMPLEXITIES INHERENT IN THE FORMATION OF THEIR IDENTITIES.

THAT PART IS KEY!!! As soon as it shows us that this mixed structure is for the purpose of something else, (keywords- to, in order to, thus, therefore, etc) we know that this is not the conclusion/main point but rather the sub conclusion.

We need a main point that says something that at least covers how they are revolutionary in that they are "expressing the complexities inherent in the formation of their identities." then she concludes that in doing so they are "revolutionizing the genre"... even further conclusion. The rest of the passage basically keeps making conclusion after conclusion, one thing leading to another leading to another, so we need this part in our MP.

-mixed genre --> ability to express complexities in formation of identity --> revolutionizing genre --> redrawing boundaries and showing determination to speak in a world that has taken their silence for granted

D stops at the first part leaving out all those other important arrows. Even worse, it really only covers HALF of the subconclusion- "multigeneric." What about multivocal?

B on the other hand says how they said aside some standard conventions (this is describing their implementation of mixed genres) IN AN EFFORT TO "make the genre more suitable for the expression of their personal histories"

Oh look... we have that in the last paragraph 'To make it more amenable to the expression of their own experiences"

B recognizes that the mixed genres was the sub conclusion, D does not.

I originally picked D over B because I thought that since the author's language was so strong in this passage, I thought B was not a strong enough answer because it only said they made an effort to do this thing but I thought the MP should have explained how this effort was successful. D said "effectively combined" so I felt the tone matched the authors tone better.

However, it is more important for the main point to truly cover the conclusion, (even if its not as strong as we would like it to be and maybe not perfect) than for the tone to match perfectly but it is only describing a sub conclusion.

This is a great lesson on why it is more important to focus on why the wrong answers are wrong, because that is much more clear than why the right answer is right. Here, this correct answer was really not THAT great because the tone could have been stronger. But the other choices are all clearly wrong.

Go through the checklist looking for a MP and eliminate accordingly:

-Does it take a narrow component of the passage and say it is the main point? YES? eliminate (this is what D does, if it says the MP is a premise or a sub conclusion then get rid of it. AKA if the sentence SUPPORTS something else in the passage, and doesn't include that something else in the question, eliminate!)

- Is there an error/ detail that doesn't match or goes beyond the info in the text? YES? Eliminate!

Had I done this strategy I would have chosen B.

Wow sorry for the novel haha but I hope it helps someone

me too

Do you think it might be nerves? Or maybe seeing the questions a second time around you catch things that you didn't catch before because you are more familiar the second time. This has happened to me too a bunch of times and I don't really understand it either. Another thing I realize I do is during the games I will accidentally make up a letter/ game piece that doesn't even exist, like add L to the list of letters when there is no L, or write a letter that looks like another letter.. Other than that I can easily get them all right, so its really frustrating because its such a stupid thing for that to be my problem. When I know I'm not being timed I don't do this. I have no idea why I do this.. I think for me it might have to do with pressure. But I don't know maybe I'm nuts too haha. I'm curious if anyone else has this problem but I doubt it lol

me too

E is correct because in the 3rd paragraph it says "the lawyer's obligation to the court and to society also ultimately benefits the defendant."

The two fold obligation is talking about how lawyers have an obligation not just to the defendant, but also the court and thereby society.

If the obligation to the court and society benefits the defendant, then there isn't a conflict of interest.

The paragraphs don't really say anything about how this twofold obligation has anything to do with helping to gather relevant facts of the case. Why would it follow that because a defense lawyer has an obligation to court and society, they are more likely to uncover the relevant facts? What if they always tried their best to uncover relevant facts, even if they only had an obligation to their client? Then adding an obligation to more people wouldn't change anything. Or what if they are unable to cover more relevant facts for other reasons?

I think the underlying assumption you are making is something along the lines of, "They have an obligation to do their best, so they are more likely to do their best"

But it doesn't follow because

- They could have already had an obligation to do this to for client so it wouldn't change anything

-Even if that part did change and they now are required to do their best more than they were before, doing their best doesn't equate with being more likely to uncover the relevant facts of the case. There could be many other things in the way of being more likely to uncover facts

-If anything it might make it harder for them to uncover facts (this is not what the author thinks) but if the client knows that their lawyer won't want to represent them or might want to get them a sentence if they knew everything, the client might be more inclined to lie.

I picked E because it said the cities didn't earn returns in the first few years of employment, which I thought weakened the premise before it that said "likely to have a big payoff in several years." If the cities they compared it to did not have a big payoff in several years, then they shouldn't be likely to either.

But I think B is even weaker because if this was true, there might not be any payoff at all, making the statement "he should be praised" MUCH weaker. It is drawing a distinction between their city and the city they are comparing to, showing that since they are not like the other cities they might not have the same result.

E on the other hand is only attacking the small part about several years, but could still have the payoff

I didn't pick D because of the word recently. I thought that since it didn't specify when this happened in the stimulus, it could have happened in the 1600s for all we know. So the fact that this yogurt decrease happened recently could be irrelevant.

I think the lesson here is that if the stimulus doesn't SAY when something is happening, its safe to assume that it is a recent occurrence and we shouldn't knock out answer choices just because they say "recently".

I was confused about D, thinking that the methane that the scientists detected must have been exposed to uv radiation because they detected it all the way back in 2003, and if its true that any methane currently in the atmosphere must have been released relatively recently, and its almost 2015, then the methane that was detected a long time ago in 2003 must have already been hit by the sunlight (otherwise there would be methane there that ISN'T RECENT).

I think the problem is that we can't say if 2003 is recent or not. In science, they go by billions of years so maybe that methane really is considered recent relatively.

I thought B was wrong because it made a prediction about the future- I knew it was necessary that the methane that wasn't released recently was exposed to sunlight, but I didn't think we were allowed to predict that the current methane will be too. I thought this was more of a sufficient. Does anyone have thoughts about this? I'm still a little confused about why we get to assume that.

wow totally missed the word tomb!!

LESSON- whenever we see that something was found in a tomb or a grave, it was buried there... so that answer would be weakened if the prediction of what that thing is, is normally passed from generation to generation... because then they wouldn't bury it

For these questions, I guess we shouldn't be picking an answer just because the stimulus DOES what the answer says to do.

C and E both say "films should do this" and the film we are talking about DOES do both of those things. BUT we are trying to justify the reasoning... meaning strengthen the connection between premise and conclusion.

P. Being funny is the important thing for a comedy

P2. The film is funny

C- The criticism for not being realistic is misguided

A. accurately capture the world? Doesn't say this anywhere

B. The description of "popular" was just used to describe it in the context. This isn't part of the argument, we are looking for something to explain why since the film is funny, and that characteristic is what is important for a comedy, the criticism is misguided.

C. The sentence "it is certainly true that the characters are too stylized to be real people" is just a qualifying sentence, not part of the argument. This answer choice is addressing a statement that wasn't even part of the argument!

Imagine if this were true, so film comedies should find their humor in their stylistic portrayals. Does this tell us anything about why, since being funny is the important thing for a comedy, the criticism for not being realistic is misguided?

I picked this before because I was thinking, if being funny is what's really important, then its more important to find humor in the stylist portrayals than to make them realistic. So if film comedies find their humor in these portrayals, and then they don't have to be realistic.

Actually I just realized I picked this because I was looking for an answer choice that said something like "this comedy should not be realistic." (if that was true then the criticism would be misguided because its SUPPOSED to be that way.) But we are not supposed to just be strengthening the conclusion. We are justifying the REASONING, which means we need to find something that tells us why the premise supports the conclusion. The premises don't tell us that the comedies even find their humor this way, so we might NOT be strengthening it. The film as a whole is funny but we don't know if that is actually related to the stylization. We are just saying that whether it is realistic or not is irrelevant for a comedy.

This line of thought doesn't work because its possible for a film to be funny AND realistic.

D. This answers the question. The film is funny, which is the important thing for a comedy, so it succeeds within its genre. If the statement that films are successful if they succeed within their genre is true, then it follows that the criticism is misguided. Maybe its not supposed to be realistic.

I thought this was the hardest question on the test.

A. I thought could be right because if the viruses were gone, then the plankton population level would quickly surge and then they wouldn't have enough resources so it would plummet. But the stimulus says it JUST drops, doesn't say anything about an initial surge so this should have never been a consideration.

B. Clearly wrong

C. This seemed possible.

D. Too vague. "sometimes" and "other organisms" what if its some other time and some other organism? Then it wouldn't resolve it.

E. My reasoning for this being possible was kind of weird. I thought that if any given time, a portion of the plankton were infected with the viruses, then when they took out all the viruses, they must have taken some plankton along with them because the viruses were in/part of the plankton, and if they did that then of course the population would drop. But then I realized it says at ANY GIVEN TIME. Which means even if they did that, there would STILL be viruses in the new water which they have already said they took OUT all the viruses, and this contradicts the premise. So this isn't even possible.

I was trying to bridge the gap between the department store and Bringham's store, so I picked C because it is sufficient to do that. BUT this is not a sufficient question!!

So even though it seems like a terrible argument to give an example of another place and then say "by this standard I should get that treatment at THIS place".. we have to just accept it. Whenever it says BY THIS STANDARD, don't try to bridge that gap anymore in a necessary question. D definitely IS necessary if we are going to go by that standard.

I thought this was one of the hardest questions on the test.

A and C- obviously wrong

D. Eliminate it because the stimulus never even mentions the quality of the product. (Don't make any outside assumptions like better environmental conditions improves quality..) productivity/output is DEF not the same thing as quality. If the necessary condition in the answer choice is literally never even mentioned, we can pretty much guarantee that is NOT the right answer for a principle question.

Also wrong because the word SHOULD is not mentioned in the stimulus.. the farmer is not saying anything SHOULD happen, he just talks about what they do.. "we do this thing which leads to another thing."

E. KEY to maximizing profits? WAYY too strong.

I knew this but I felt like none of them fit so I picked it anyway. Moving forward if I ever get in this position where I feel like nothing fits, instead of randomly picking one, I won't pick the ones that I KNOW are too strong or unsupported. If nothing seems to fit- go with the weaker choice!

B. Confusing because I didn't know if he was motivated by the environment and profit was a side effect, if it was the other way around. So this seemed strong also . But it actually doesn't matter which the FARMER is motivated by, because the principle is just saying in general that this action can happen, and that is supported in the stimulus. We know it can. I think if I thought of this more as a MSS question it would have been easier.

I think I spent too much time on understanding why B was wrong during the test. It could be easily eliminated once we realize that it is not addressing the same subject as the conclusion. The conclusion is making a statement about foods that are both nutritious AND flavorful... and within that subject, its saying we should emphasize the flavor. So an answer choice talking about a subject that is completely one or the other- only nutritious or only flavorful- is relevant to us.

It is also a weak answer choice because it says "few people", not good for a strengthen question.

I struggled with question 24 because I wasn't sure if I could agree that it was saying "real estate practices should be nondiscriminatory." It said that at first btu then goes on to say "in other respects, however, this proposal also continued to define women in terms of their roles in their domestic sphere and as mothers." I figured that if thats true, then its really NOT non discriminatory, and since the first part of the second approach talks about equal education, I decided it was just LESS discriminatory but not NON discriminatory. After coming to this conclusion I realized none of the answer choices really worked and then didn't know what to do so I picked B.

Why can we conclude that it is non discriminatory after what it said in the 2nd part of the paragraph?

Thanks!!

for 16 it says "one of the first cultural forms to cross the racial divide in NORTH AMERICA." Why can we assume this means United States? What if they are talking about Canada or Mexico? I know US dominates the continent but I don't understand why we are supposed to assume that these are the same thing.