Another way C is easily eliminated is that: 1. a placebo (sugar pill) would never result in consistent, widespread bodily changes across a population, this is just silly, but even if it somehow did, 2. there's no way the changes would be the same changes as caused by the drug and finally, 3. even if the placebo somehow caused the exact same visible outward bodily changes, why would that make Engle think that he was referring to the outcome of the study? The point being that the presumption of the placebo having "no effects" on the control group's bodies is completely irrelevant to both speakers points. There's also a small typo in C, it says "whatever" as opposed to "whatsoever."

I would wait for January

I'm struggling to identify what to implement in the future to prevent a similar mistake.

I thought C at first. When I read E, I changed my answer to E because it sounds like an example of the argument, although it has the weakness of not specifying that the technology is a labor saving one. Then again, C also has a large weakness -- it says "A social system..." as in, any social system whose values cannot change, would not be one that technology can eliminate economic roles. And JY makes the argument that this is the contrapositive. However, this would not have worked as MBT question as the conditional is a "most" statement, therefore it has no contrapositive; the stimulus says 'a social system in which labor-saving technology is introduced which renders certain economic roles obsolete' --most--> ("will tend to") "undermine the values in that social system."

That most statement is a mess, and I don't see it aligning with answer choice C. I can accept that this is a MSS and not a MBT so it could be correct. However, it also then requires us to make the leap that "undermining" a social system's values necessarily means those values have been "changed." The sufficient condition given in choice C is "social system whose values are not susceptible to change." Just because the values aren't "susceptible to change" does not mean they can't be "undermined."

Additionally, choice C still says "technology," as opposed to specifying "labor saving technology," which is what I see as E's largest weakness. It's true that the "foreign" aspect is random, but so what? It doesn't say a foreign technology is more or less likely to undermine the social system. Removing the foreign aspect, E would read "A technological innovation that is implemented in a social system will tend to undermine the social system," which is exactly what the stimulus says (barring the specification of "labor saving" tech, which choice C also lacks). I could see why E would be wrong if it had said something like "a foreign technology would undermine the social system more than a domestic one," that would clearly be wrong. But if "foreign technology" is simply a type of technology otherwise inconsequential to the answer, why is C more correct than E?

#help

The section that can be improved the fastest is games. If you only have a few weeks to study, you'd probably maximize your score by spending 90% of your time on games and 5% each just familiarizing yourself with the other two sections. I would start out with conditional logic as it's applicable to all sections and is not common knowledge. Best of luck!

I chose D on #9 because the question lacks the "if true" qualifier we often see on other questions. Absent the "if true," the correct answer states that a deeper understanding of pandas shows them to be more closely related to racoons than bears. "If true," this would have fit the situation. Without it, I read the answer as an immediate eliminate. That, paired with the fact that, who the heck knows if a pine tree is an evergreen or not, makes this a frustrating one.

For these types of questions, I think it helps a lot to think about the boundary conditions or most extreme examples allowed within the constraints of the question.

For example, let's imagine two buckets of fish. One represents all of the fish caught by commercial fishing in 1995, and the other for 2010. Let's call bucket one (1995)'s fish equal to 100 kg, and let's say that these fish represented 10% of the fish in the ocean that year.

Now, for our second bucket (2010), we know that the weight of the fish didn't increase. For simplicity's sake let's say it's also 100 kg, which is allowed by the stimulus saying the weight of the catch simply "did not increase" after 1995. For the % of fish in the ocean this bucket represents for that year, we just know it will be some number greater than 10%. But let's call it 99% for the purpose of this thought experiment.

So Bucket 1, 1995: 100 kg in bucket, 900 kg of fish left in the ocean

Bucket 2, 2010: 100 kg in bucket, 1 kg of fish left in the ocean

It's immediately clear there were less fish in the ocean in 2010 than in 1995.

I was between B and C and I'm surprised more people aren't pointing out that C can be read to be doing exactly what B is doing. We already know from the stimulus that 'almost all cases of rabies in humans come from being bitten by a rabid animal,' AND we know that bats rarely bite people. If we are then introduced to the information in (C) that MOST animals that can carry rabies don't usually bite people under "normal conditions" (presumably, when they're not rabid), that completely destroys the argument that bats in general "rarely bite" and are therefore not a cause for concern.

In other words, the stimulus says, 'Human rabies comes from being bitten by a rabid animal. Don't worry about bats though, because they don't usually bite.'

(C) says 'Okay, but most animals who can have rabies don't usually bite.'

(B) says 'Rabid bats are more likely to bite.'

They both take down the same argument. If basically all human rabies comes from animal bites (which is stated), and most of those animals don't usually bite, it makes the premise that 'bats don't usually bite' irrelevant. It doesn't matter why they don't usually bite; the point is that the premise is no longer relevant.

I suspect the test writers justify B over C because, in their opinions, it may directly state what C only implies. Yes, a rabid animal being more likely to bite could be an explanation for the phenomenon presented in C, but it doesn't have to be.

Down

I thought these explanations were particularly weak. Here's where I'm struggling:

#26. I was between A and C. I decided A was wrong because it states that courts should examine the appropriateness of assessing monetary damages BEFORE they consider specific performance as an alternative. That word "before" really made me think it was wrong. Where in the passage does it suggest that monetary damages should be considered BEFORE specific performance? It does say "[specific performance] is often the only reasonable remedy when monetary damages could not adequately compensate the one who has been harmed." Saying that it's "often" the only reasonable remedy did not indicate to me that the courts should first try assessing monetary damages.

C, on the other hand, seems pretty reasonable. I could understand JY's reaction to it if they had taken the word "coercive" out of it. But as written, it says "In general, coercive court-ordered remedies in contract violation cases are unfair and should be avoided." It doesn't say "all" court-ordered remedies are unfair, it specifically says "coercive" remedies are unfair. There is clear evidence that the author agrees that, when the remedy would be considered coercive, it should be avoided.

#27. Maybe I'm being too nit-picky with wording but one phrase in the passage threw me off with this one (again). Passage states "Awarding monetary compensation WHERE POSSIBLE in such cases permits the court to steer clear of entanglement..." And the correct answer states "MOST people" can compensate their employers. The author has already clarified that her position only applies "where possible" i.e. where people have the ability to pay. I don't see how adding a condition that "most people" are, in fact, able to pay, strengthens her position at all.