#feedback explanation for (B) makes sufficient/necessary confusion

You can eliminate A and C easily because both premises are relative; students chose which they liked BETTER. A and C are absolute; they conclude about whether the students liked or disliked those paintings on their own

For (B), even if you concede that they are discussing whether it's possible to create public art that people with radically different opinions can enjoy and support, they could both agree; they would just disagree on how this would happen (Laurie thinking through consensus or reconciliation, while Elsa through emphasizing difference in opinions)

@indiamitchell1994953 cholesterol of group 2 was unchanged, so a fact about excreting cholesterol once it reached a certain level is irrelevant. no level was reached because it never changed (as far as we know)

#feedback the explanation for (A) directly contradicts (E) and its explanation

@CarolineKaplan "So a seeming paradox arises: when embryos of different species are at the one- or few-cell stage and still appear almost identical, the mechanisms of development they use are vastly different; yet"

in reviewing drilling i can no longer see which ACs i eliminated #feedback

@gzagarri It's the earlier criticism of the modern commentators; earlier is relative to the second criticism, which was more recent

Where are savings accounts mentioned in Passage B? #help

@JennyFrank Agreed re. interpretation of D, however the AC eliminated that assumption for you by directly saying it is a known behavior of hunter-gatherer societies

Why is (B) the correct answer over (E)? In p3, the index of environmentally sustainable growth is said to include "production costs" -- if they are using less expensive fuel, they have more money to allocate to resource management

(E) has nothing to do with conservation or recycling

written explanation is too long. less is more #feedback

again, way too long of explanations #feedback

these explanations are so long that they take away from the learnings. doing too much #feedback

if the first part of (A) is X --> Y, then why wouldn't the second part be /X --> Y? If a condition is necessary to prevent something, I don't see how it would be /Y --> /X, as said above @HimajaReddy #help

C is also wrong because it doesn't say that the public should know more than ANY law enforcement officials (i.e., also know more than the law enforcement officials that do know about the new regulations)

@gcoleman124 muscle cells get bigger by merging with stem cells that are nested between them (p2). the muscle cells incorporate the nuclei that previously belonged to the stem cells (p2). in the study, the muscles atrophied but the number of nuclei in the cells didn't change (p3). since the extra nuclei don't die, they could be posed to make muscle proteins again, providing a type of muscle memory at the cellular level (p3).

@Vansh_Sidhu If cattle ranch requires much more land than ostrich farm, yet ostrich farm has higher start-up costs, then it is safe to assume the issue of $$ lies with the animals rather than the land

I got this right and am very comfortable with this question, but I'm wondering if anyone has advice for how to breeze through a question like this as it did take me 3 minutes. Is there a way to work through this faster?

@lsatdiva12345 The psychological effects of the largely ceremonial and hugely impressive architecture are making people realize the extent of their ruler's mastery of the physical world

#help can someone please explain how to arrive at each of the 3 Strongly Supported Conclusions in the written explanation?

Another reason you can eliminate AC B is because the studies being referenced in the question/phrase are specifically the "studies involving simulated trial situations" (i.e., not including the psychological explanations).

@andrewkim9604612 This question is MSS, not RRE or S

@cstevenhively Super helpful! How do you practice time? Do you take all tests/sections/drills under your standard testing conditions? I've been struggling to balance unlimited time with standard time countdown, because i feel like the unlimited really helps me learn what i dont know, but obviously the timed conditions makes me stay on track and get used to moving fast

I understand the logic behind why A is correct, but I don't like that it talks about how the symptoms stop getting worse (aka could remain same), or abated, when the stimulus is talking about whether the people get the disease or not.

It felt like a trap answer concluding that because symptoms stopped getting worse for many and abated for some, i could conclude that without cause there's no effect. like imagine if eating carrots gave you covid, and when you stopped eating carrots your symptoms stopped getting worse or abated. it could still very well be the case that you still have covid.

Please help!