Loophole Flaw (Provable)
Answer Chosen - D
Correct Answer - D
Why D)?
D) calls out the author for overlooking our omitted options
we could argue
what if these two things are both correlated because of a third factor (X --> Y & Z)
D) puts that thought process into motion and calls out the author effectively for overlooking that loophole
It seems to me that this question type in particular does not have much of a pattern as opposed to the classic flaws, which imo are easier to identify given their patterns.
For those who have no issues with the LF questions, how are you finding the patterns?
What are you looking for in the stimulus particularly given that every stim is kinda diff?
Thanks in advance!
Flaw (Loophole Flaw) (Provable)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - E
Why E)?
E calls out the author for overlooking our loophole
What if the endangered species in question currently has a higher priority than those species that are not endangered
This loophole essentially calls out the conclusion the author is trying to reach
Why not C)?
C) actually strengthens the argument
it is almost a rephrase of what is already being said in the argument
Flaw (Loophole Flaw) (Provable)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - C
Why C)?
The author is jumping to the conclusion that the government's obligation to raise taxes is a mistake on the basis that the rise in taxes would make taxpayers unhappy
The author is not directly addressing the obligation of the government and is simply inferring that because there is a negative consequence (Unhappiness), the obligation in question here is wrong/ mistaken
MBT (Provable)
Answer Chosen - B
Correct Answer - D
Why D)?
if diagrammed, we can see the stimulus as
G --> EDE --> EaE --> CEtE
The reason why D) works is because it is providing us with a situation in which X would be able to create G ONLY IF they can EaE
So, given that the computers are incapable of EaE they are not able to be G
This feels like a contrapositive form of the correct answer
Why not B)?
Clearly a misread here because the answer is trying to say that the artists themselves are the ones EDE and therefore, they are able to produce G
But that is not what the stimulus is trying to state
Instead, they are saying that the art itself needs to EDE, not the artis,t so this can not be true & is not supported
Need to read with more intent in the answers
Remember that answers can come in contra form
Flaw (Loophole Flaw) (Provable)
Answer Chosen - D
Correct Answer - D
Why D)?
D) effectively calls out the author for reaching their conclusion from the stimulus as stated: diatonic scales have always dominated the music of most of the world.
We could ask ourselves, What if --> there were something else causing the DS to be so dominant?
This is what D) is doing. It is effectively predicting our loophole around the argument in a better worded way
Given that we were working with Causal Reasoning, we could ask ourselves
A cause B?
B cause A?
or, is there a C factor causing A and B
SA (Powerful)
Answer Chosen - A
Correct Answer - C
Why C)?
C) renders the conclusion 100% true by supporting the conclusion that none of the reader's enjoyment depends on attaining an understanding of what the poet means
No writer who ever uses words ambiguously has any reader whose enjoyment depends
This should have been enough to render the conclusion true
Why not A)?
A) does not touch on the concept of the reader's enjoyment not depending on an understanding of the poet's writing
Moreover, the more I look at this answer, it makes sense why it's wrong --> sometimes is so weak that even if we tried to make the answer work, we couldn't due to its weak language
Solutions/ Reflections
Read with intent while going through the answers. If we get a feeling that this is weak or does not have any impact on the stimulus, we need to move on
NA (Provable)
Answer Chosen - D
Correct Answer - D
Why D)?
if negated. This answer can hurt the argument
Intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life can be obtained only by the kind of immersion in everyday life that is precluded by being an academic
This premise, in particular, is what allows us to attack the negated version of D
If we accept that IG of E is obtained ONLY by those who are not academics, then we can say that with D) there are Novelists who are academics who can be great without the IG of E
NA (Provable)
Answer Chosen - A
Correct Answer - A
Why A)?
If negated, this actually objects to the conclusion the argument is making by using an AE of the possibility that SOME of the CBD are hot enough to destroy L
It is crucial to remember that NONE contraposed is SOME
MSS (Provable)
Answer Chosen - D
Correct Answer - C
On MSS, we need to find an answer that can prove 99-100%
Why C)?
this is essentially staying keen to the conditional within the stimulus
if diagrammed,
DSiC--> M
So, if we contraposed this, we could say that if noM -- nDSiC
Thus, we can infer that populations settle only where the climate is fairly stable because they would not need to migrate
Why not D)?
D) is unsupported based on the information from the stimulus
Every place is also too strong an answer, and we can not support strong answers
We could object to this answer by saying that there is a possibility of HI being established in places where there is, in fact, an intermingling of ideas as a result of migration
This is the worst out of all the answers, actually
Solutions
Diagram better and understand the conditional language being used in the stimulus
read with intent
MBF/ Contradict (Powerful)
Answer Chosen - B
Correct Answer - C
Why C)?
This answer goes against the policy in place set by the DG & effectively allows H to get a credit for the full week's worth of delivery
If we were to diagram this,
B every 4w
for C
report within 24 hours
if replacement copy is not available
Can requ temp. non delivery --> if you inform DG 3 days before nond period
Cancel sub
request before
request in writing
Given that Herrera had called the DG on a Wednesday to not deliver to her property --> she is justified in getting a credit because they still delivered to her
Why not B)?
B allows for the DG to actually reject his request
Although she did call 24 hours before, there could still have been a replacement copy available to her, and so the credit does not apply to her in this case
B) was looking tempting because it included the fact that she had reached out within the 24-hour mark, and thought that was enough to give her the credit
i completley forgot about the fact that she could still get a replacement copy
Solutions
I was diagramming this, butI need to condense the diagramming to understand it more clearly
diagram, better really is the best takeaway from this question -- there was a lot of information that needed to be diagrammed
Principle-Strengthen (Powerful)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - D
Why D)
D) establishes the trigger in the principle with two or more objectionable characteristics
This includes both the SO and the DoWV we saw in the stimulus being outlined
Why C)
C) has the SO, but it leaves out the DoWV -- so we can not establish the trigger
We need to ensure that both are included
C) is also reversed logic and is not following the trigger we need in the answer
Solutions/ Reflections?
Read with intent - this would have been way easier if we read it thoroughly with intent
if we can not prove an answer as the strongest and best one, move on
Paradox (Resolution) (Powerful)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - C
Why C)?
C) effectively solves the puzzle of the paradox
Given that there are a larger number of female to male part-time workers, they earn less than the full-time workers earn
Solutions/ Reflections
if we diagram, the paradox should go -- P1 --> R (CA) --> P2
we need an answer strong enough to impact the stimulus
Stated (Question Stem)
Art/ Comparative (Frameworks)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - B
Why B)?
Both passages include human emotion and also provide support for their relation to music
Why not C)?
A provides some sort of relation to music in the regard, B does not address it at all
Implied/ Purpose of passage (Question Stems)
Art/ Comparative (Frameworks)
Answer Chosen - D
Correct Answer - C
Why C)?
C) is exactly what is happening in both passages.
We are seeing both authors attempting to understand where the ability for humans to create music originated from
Passage A is attempting to argue that the creation of musicis derived from evolutionary effects
Passage B attempts to argue that the creation of music is derived from the evolution of mothers trying to care for their babies
Why not D)?
Passage A is answering this in the context of how music came about evolutionarily, whereas B does not address this at all
Author’s perspective/ Implied (Question Stem)
Art Single position (Frameworks)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - A
Why is A) Correct?
P3 provides the best support for this answer
Indeed, her poetry offers example after example of what can only be properly regarded as lyric narrative
Thus, while the language is lyrical, it often comes to constitute, cumulatively, a work of narrative fiction.
These two excerpts from the passage allow us to prove that some of the works that derive from Dove can be classified between the two genres, even though she also fuses them
Why not C)?
We can not support the idea that Dove's writings are without precedent in the realm of U.S. writing
It is also a very strong answer --> avoid that
Solutions/ Reflections
Read with intent in the answers
CTRL-F if need be
Annotate while reading the passage and understand the purpose of each paragraph's intention is
If we can not prove an answer, we must move on
RC analogy (Question Type)
Art/ Single position (Frameworks)
Present a Debate Vibes??
Answer Chosen - A
Correct Answer - D
Why D)?
D) effectively supports the analogy that we are reading within the passage
Two distinctive genres, someone comes and fuses them, creating a hybrid of the two
we can support this. It is provable
Why not A)?
A) is not talking about two different genres
non-traditional cooking methods & traditional ingredients?? --> It would only make sense if it were NTCM & TCM fused together to make a hybrid of the two
we can not support this answer from the passage
Solutions/ Reflections
read with intent
if we can not support an answer, move on
answers work for us we do not work for them
Weaken (Powerful)
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - E
On Weaken, we need to either
1) AE
2) Hurt the plausibility
Why E)?
E) provides an alternative explanation for what the author is trying to infer
The microwave does not actually kill off all the enzymes of the milk in question; it just creates small zones where there is heat prominent, but is not affect the entire glass of milk
Why not C)?
C does not provide either of the options we need to successfully weaken the stimulus
In fact, the answer itself is quite irrelevant, given that it is trying to object to something not stated within the conclusion
This answer is simply trying to compare how two things can cause a liquid to reach 50 degress celcius
I know I chose this answer because E felt so vague
Now reading C) I can completely see why it is so off the line of what we are actually trying to do here
Stated (Question Type)
Comparative/ Law (Frameworks)
Law Passage
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - E
Why E?
Passage A's is a bit clearer in its articulation of why the Roma people are faced with such problematic endeavours of the legal international system in place
Passage B was a bit more vague imo, though I would say that the overall tone of the author definitely can be considered as consistent with passage A's perspective on how the Roma are affected by the legal system in place
Why not C)?
Not just Passage B, but both authors actually agree that the Roma are an example of people who are not clearly considered. This is why they use the Roma in their broader explanation of the legal system in place on the international scale. the Roman are an example to support their claims
They also do not consider the Roma to be a nation, but rather a collection of people at most
Solutions/Reflections
Read with intent through the answers
if we can not support an answer from the passage, we need to move on from it
answers work for us we do not work for them we can not sit there and try ot make sense of an answer if we have an underlying assumption that it is wrong
WSE (Question Types)
Phenomenon-hypothesis/ Science/ Single position (Frameworks)
Science Passage
Answer Chosen - E
Correct Answer - C
Why C)?
Given that we are weakening the assertion made regarding the salamander, C) weakens the argument by providing an AE.
The author is asserting that the salamanders do not eat their own kind for the sake of self-preservation, but what if it is because they are looking after their offspring? -- this could directly undermine the concept of self-preservation because the slamander is directly doing it for another one of its' own kin, not itself
Why not E)?
This is not necessarily attacking the assertion of why salamanders are not eating eachother
So it is really going in the wrong direction once we understand why C) is correct
who cares if they are immune to certain diseases - we need to weaken the purpose of not eating eachother
Implied (Question Stem)
Phenomenon-hypothesis/ Science/ Single position (Frameworks)
Science Passage
Answer Chosen - B
Correct Answer - E
Why E)?
E) essentially says that the IFT helped explain the mysterious phenomena of honey bees. Previously, the traditional use of evolutionary theories was this. The IFT and ET both helped to explain this paradox
This can all be found within P1 -- therefore, we can reasonably infer and support E as the correct answer
CTRL-F honeybees to look for that extra clue/support
Why not B)?
picked it because it felt like it was the only right answer, given that IFT is foundationally based on the view that species do things for others because they get a net gain in return
but the ONLY IF for me is what makes this answer so strong, because we do not have to believe that. We also do not have any support to prove that in relation to the conversation of honeybees -- we can not support that assertion in the answer and so it is wrong
Solutions/ Reflections
Use CTRL-F CAN NOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH
If an answer is to strong then we can not prove it in this case
we need to look for answer that we can support from the passage itself
answers work for us we do not work for them
Stated (Question Types)
Phenomenon-hypothesis/ Science/ Single position
Science Passage
Answer Chosen - D
Correct Answer - B
Why B)?
We can directly support B) from the passage. It really is as easy at CTRL-F certain words that are present in the Question stem: In this case, Organism would have been most ideal.
P1: Improvements in the general understanding of these mechanisms have turned some biologists' attention to the question of why kin recognition occurs at all.
Though vague, it closely aligns with what B) is stating.
Why not D)?
Must be better understood -- too strong
We also have no way of supporting this answer because the author never mentions it -- at most, all they mention is that there are other ways to understand kin
this answer is jumping the gun and is not something we can infer based on the passage
Solutions/ Reflection
USE CTRL-F FFS
Read w/ Intent
Filtrate the vagueness of the wording/ break down
if we can not support something move on
Stated (Question Type)
Art/ Critique or debate/ Spotlight (Frameworks)
Answer Chosen - A
Correct Answer - D
Why D?
D) is one of the things that the critics point out that makes T's work faulty
There is support from P1 & P2
P1 - Others, however, dismissed his works as simple retellings of local tales, full of unwelcome liberties taken with the details of the well-known story lines
P2 - Many of his critics are right to suggest that Tutuola's subjects are not strikingly original
This alone provides enough to support the answer of D
Why not A)?
The critics do not point out that his work is not similar to that of other African oral traditions because they do not even view his works as such
Solutions/ Reflections
Read with intent
before moving on to another paragraph, annotate and understand the scope of the given p
if we can not support an answer, move one
answers work for you, you do not work for them
RC analogy (Question Type)
Art/ Critique or debate/ Spotlight (Frameworks)
Humanities
Answer Chosen - C
Correct Answer - D
Why not C)
Tutuola did not tell a story of modern life through his writing; instead, he was taking familiar and traditional tales that were told from Irish folktales and then re-telling them within contemporary Irish life.
D)?
This is the answer that we were looking for
P4 is the best support we have for this answer
Solutions/ Reflections?
Read with intent
If we can not support an answer. move on
understand the role and purpose of each paragraph to help with finding answers -- write down if needed
Classic Flaw (Provable)
Answer Chosen - B
Correct Answer - B
Why B)?
B) is inferring a big claim -- people in general seem to have had a strong grasp of sophisticated mathematical concepts. on the basis that the writings of the Mayan religious scribes exhibit a high degree of mathematical competence
The author is using only one piece of evidence to draw a general conclusion about something/someone