I also crossed out A because it says "abstract model" but the author emphasizes the need for "empirical evidence" which is NOT abstract
I know we always say practice practice practice and it will get easier, but I really struggle with reading efficiently on reading comp despite the practice. I am not a fast reader and it takes me a second longer to truly understand a sentence. If I do an untimed reading comp passage, I almost always get every answer correct..... but it will take me like 15-20 minutes. Then, when I do timed, I get almost 50% wrong. Help!! How do I read more efficiently on reading comp?
I had the same issue understanding and this helped so much. Thank you!
The words "immediate" and "now" oriented my thinking around time, which is why I assumed that there would be a strike in the future. I'm sure the test writers did this on purpose but jeeeezzzz!
holy shit i suck at these
Is D not just restating the premise? Like doesn't the premise stipulate that the cost for the biological process is not more expensive than the conventional process?
C is redundant because it does nothing to address the gap in the argument. The way I think about the gap is "how do we get from these concepts of social processes and insights in the premise to the concept of traditional education being ineffective in the conclusion?" C doesn't really do anything to acknowledge traditional education being ineffective.
D on the other hand DOES do that. It says hey we can't have effective education if we don't have insight. Yes, it doesn't explicitly talk about the concept of social processes in the answer choice, but it is inherent because the reason we don't have insight is b/c of a lack of social processes.
This is how I thought about it - I hope that helps!
It doesn't really feel like B pokes a hole in the analogy, more like it pokes a hole in the PRONG of ONE of the sides of the analogy. So, not sure how B actually makes the hole in the analogy bigger.
The reason I chose C was because the conclusion said that the effects are misleading. C shows a scenario as to WHY it is misleading - because in a not controlled environment, like that of local soil conditions, one molecule breaks down more than another, showing that the results are misleading. It's a bad experiment so it strengthens the conclusion that the data is misleading. I am still a bit confused, but I guess I can see how the conclusion is actually saying "I am rejecting this data, so let me show you a better experiment, answer B to prove why." Can someone help explain to me why my initial interpretation was off?
I also thought B was correct because it is the fat/oil PARTICULAR to Mediterranean food
I couldn't totally understand why E was wrong, but to your point, I went with D because it just made sense to me. It strengthened the validity of the experiment which then strengthened the discrepancy, so I figured in my mind that it was likely the correct answer.
I also thought B was wrong because yes, funding IS subject to change, but it could still be subject to change BASED on what the corporations want
I also thought about the example of AI
I totally agree with you. It seems arbitrary to choose one over the other. I get his explanation of why C is better, but it seems to me that you could still explain why D might be better. Like if we are to use outside knowledge enough to extrapolate that in the seventeenth century it was hard to get printed items, then it also feels reasonable to note that, actors rehearsing over and over again would surely have some of the other lines memorized
I also find that I pay attention more to the explanation when I get an answer wrong which ultimately helps my learning! another way to look at it too
For answer choice B, I disagree that Sasha says nothing about government/society values - to me, when she said that in democratic governments people are "free to dissent," that means that there can be a world in which the government and society hold different values. I understand that B is incorrect, but could there perhaps be a different reason that it is incorrect?
I am assuming they threw this in here since the two question types share similarities, there is some cause and effect in this question which we were just touching on, and, my guess mainly why, is to refresh a past question type as we move along.
#feedback second paragraph - It's also a great introduction because we got a glimpse into the various types of argument in LR.
"argument" should be plural to "arguments"
Here's how I see it and maybe a bit easier to understand
Fat Cat vs kids example
Suppose the trash bin was knocked over. The original explanation is: Fat Cat did it.
Now, we introduce an alternative hypothesis: The kids knocked over the bin.
If we take this alternative hypothesis as true, we don’t need the Fat Cat explanation anymore. We know why the trash fell over—it was the kids.
Result: The original argument (blaming Fat Cat) is weakened.
True alternative hypothesis: Weakens the original argument.
False alternative hypothesis: Strengthens the original argument by ruling out other possibilities.
I'm confused when we learned about inferring some relationships when two items share a sufficient and are on the necessary side.
#feedback I would love for there to be a little intro on negation before jumping right into it with the quantifiers because my brain when straight to doing the contrapositive and I was confused when I got all of them wrong!
I read #5 as "fewer than half translates to some or many." AKA, it would be kittens children home. Why is this incorrect?
#help
Would the contrapositive of #5 be / (person aware --> knowledge established) --> believes not exist?
I mean.... to me it also just feels like we can do what we have been doing from the beginning and it makes more sense in my head.
/ Prohibited keeping pets --> Legit medical purpose (negate sufficient because of unless) which essentially means keep pet --> legit medical purpose (if one can keep their pet, aka they are not prohibited, it must be that the pet serves a legit medical purpose). The contrapositive would then read - / legit medical purpose --> /keep pet (if there is no legit medical purpose, then one is prohibited from having a pet, matching the original rule).
Is this okay to do?
I am in DC and would be interested too!