Interested!

19 is a point id allow myself to lose cause it's just that hard

It is hard to realize that "blackmailing is illegal" is a default setting in Roman law. The logic goes like this: an act is illegal if it causes harm + (assumption) blackmailing causes harm = blackmailing is unlawful. My summary is still a conditional sentence because I hadn't paired it with the assumption.

a better summary of the two passages:

Common law: legal separately, illegal combined.

Roman law: illegal unless proven legitimate

Q4 C and E: where would an analysis of how the authors' cultural backgrounds influenced their books, or an explanation of a book's methodology appear? IN A BOOK REVIEW. Not in the book itself. This question asks about what's in the autobiographies, not what's in this passage, which is a review of the books.

Q25: since there is a quicker and easy way available, the solution suggested by the study is, by comparison, not that attractive.

Am i late to the party? Really interested if there's spot left!!

ramifications= "if the constructionists are right..."

clarification of the relevance: "but in fact, nature provides numerous examples..." and then each subsequent paragraph gives an example

if (A*B) then C, since not C then at least one of A and B is false. You cant be sure it's A or B. in answer choice A:

A=TV news

B=newspaper report

(A^B)-->contradiction, but contradiction is always false, so the consequent fails and thus (A^B) fails.

It is very, very hard to translate A to this in limited time. So another way to understand it:

the stimulus talks about two conflicting claims and it chooses to belive one of them and not the other without justification.

This is what A does: it chooses to belive the TV over the newspaper without any further reason.

My dumb ass thought C meant the authority implemented killing the non-native oysters as a means to restore the native oyster population...It's TBT, the chemical!!

same direction-->sharp descent-->more resistance-->less contact between plates--->less friction--->less earthquake

opposite directions-->shallow angle descent-->less resistance-->more contact--->more friction--->more earthquakes

the most important link is the one between angles of descent and how big the areas of contact between the two plates are.

read the "anyone" in C as "everyone"😭

Why A: intention: help long-term residents. actual effect: benefit the wealthy and hurt the residents.

This criticism is based on an evaluation and comparison between the intended effect and the actual effect, which matches A perfectly.

Not corporations-->only government

loophole: what if there are other entities that could do the same thing?

C rules out this possibility.

Why I got it wrong: didn't read the last line of C. I'm honestly baffled by my stupidity. I spent close to 4 minutes on this and not once I managed to read C correctly. I really need to get better at skipping and coming back to the harder questions with a fresh mind.

"A only if B" means A-->B

the only thing that could be inferred is B or ~A. A can never be inferred from this conditional statement alone.

I thought of the loophole that it could be a baby dino but I read B as at what period was the dino from😭

literally what does eschew or summer haunt even mean

urban pollution

READ CAREFULLY!!

The extra time you spend reading carefully won't be as long as the extra time you spend being confused about what would have been pretty clear.

This is so subtle. does the second argument amounts to impugning R's motives?? Why do we automatically think "just an attempt to please her loyal readers" is bad and this is said with a certain attitude? Why does talking about motives equal impugning motives?? I just don't think there is enough evidence to imply that the commentator is disapproving R's motives, maybe they're simply talking about it without any judgment?

But of course other AC's are worse. Maybe I didn't read the stimulus in the right mindset. if I noticed this is from a commentator and noticed the "unfortunately", I'll probably read it with a more dramatic, judgemental inner voice. Like, I would imagine a judgy political commentator with an attitude saying "oH oF cOuRsE iT's nOt a pRoBleM fOr hEr" in a sarcastic tone.

I thought this is one of the arguments where you refute one's argument by inferring an absurd conclusion from their conclusion and what they accept.

Person B: look, according to your principle, employee strikes should almost never be legal. But apparently, we don't accept that ridiculous conclusion, so your argument is problematic.

I thought person B is using this strategy to reject the truth of the principle and thus undermine the whole argument by showing his principle contradicts his belief that most strkes should be allowed.

BUT: I assumed one thing: the agreement between the two people that most strikes hurt customers. I thought this is so apparent that they must accept. of course if A accepts this it would be logically inconsistent for him to accept both the principle and the belief that most strikes should be legal, and this is exactly what I thought B wants to show to reject his argument. I assumed that A didn't establish the logical link between those things and B is pointing out A's inconsistency.

I was too familiar with ad absurdum that I instantly thought B was rejecting the principle (if this principle is true then there is an absurd implication) without realizing the implicit assumption required here: most strikes hurt customers. If A disagrees on this, the absurd conclusion wouldn't logically follow from his argument, and A wouldn't be logically inconsistent. This is better than to assume A is self-contradictory.

So basically: A either accepts that most strikes don't hurt customers or is logically inconsistent.

I unconsciously chose the latter because B sounds like he's trying to reject the principle by ad absurdum, not knowing that there is an implicit assumption in B's argument: most strikes hurt customers. I ignored this implicit premise and thought A is logically inconsistent, which is not true: A is only logically inconsistent if A accepts the implicit premise. If A doesn't then he isn't logically inconsistent, which should be the "default" scenario because we need to assume people's rationality to do most questions. So since A doesn't accept what B assumes, that's where they disagree.

I think since the stimulus says "a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics...", it's concerned with proportions and not raw numbers because if you need to know exactly how many people like ice-creams, no "sample" could "reflect" this number, you can only survey the entire population to get an accurate number. I think "same demographic characteristics" means the same percentage of people who, for example, likes ice-creams. This can be accurate as long as the sample is representative, it doesn't have too much to do with the size of the sample.

at the base of trees

read it as on trees lol.

eliminated D because I thought the limiting factor is whether the area can be drilled and not how deep they can drill, but "...can currently be reached by drilling" indicates that how deep we can drill is the limiting factor. Also, in retrospect, E is way too weak that it's not enough to "justify". Strengthen, maybe, but not justify.

My issue with C is "sufficiency". I thought "the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion" means it's a valid argument, which means if the evidence is true, then the conclusion must be true. But the author's argument attacks the soundness of this argument and not the validity of this argument by calling into question the truth of the evidence:

the hasty inference:

(P)T-rex are too big to chase down their prey, so (C) it's not a hunter.

the author's argument:

If T-rex's preys are even bigger, they can chase down their prey. (so it's not true that T-rex cant chase down their prey)

This is rejecting the truth of the premise.

to question the validity of the argument, the author needs to show that even if "immense size-->slow-->cant chase down prey" is true, T-rex could still be hunters, which the author's argument fails to do because it doesn't accept the truth of this premise.

So, does it mean "sufficiency of evidence" just means soundness (valid+true premises)?? #help

Same take on D, i eliminated it because clearly readers' interpretations determine genre; but then again what if reading protocols and genres are, to some extent, co-dependent? A depends on B doesn't mean B doesn't depend on A.

A, on the other hand, is pretty logically rigorous: if reading protocols determine genres, then naturally works written with no specific expected reading protocols will be ambiguous in terms of genre.

Q8

seeks to maximize the information that a witness can give so that (1) they can generate leads and (2) confirm alibis.

"so that" introduces two uses/purposes of the information collected.

It's actually so easy if you read the whole sentence carefully but I guess we just saw B and skim the sentence and thought alibis is one type of the desired information.

#26 C

My issue with C is that it overlooks the possibility that although the Parliament has unlimited power within the nation, it might be restricted by international law now that it's a member of a multinational body, maybe the international organization has a rule that restricts ending membership.

But I suppose the nuance between a commitment and an actual membership can make this worry trivial. I'm still not convinced tho, what if the commitment is a formal one with written legal documents... that might be binding for the Parliament