26 got me so stumped. AC C just says that some parts of the brain become relatively more active when doing a particular mental task.

Sure the third paragraph was a counterargument but it's still the author's voice. The author explicitly admits in that paragraph that brain scans "reveal well-defined areas that 'light up' in response to various cognitive tasks"

But then the author goes on in the last paragraph to say that even if certain spots 'light up' extra, the rest of the brain doesn't go silent (the subtract method "obscures the fact that the entire brain is active in both conditions")

So the author sees that some areas do show higher activity---but they're worried people might wrongly conclude the rest of the brain is doing nothing or that each lit area is in an isolated "module"

---> The author does not say the subtractive method does not show differences in oxygen usage (it does)....the author just warns we're ignoring baseline activity in the rest of the brain (so don't jump to the conclusion that we have a "perfect module")

#feedback Such a great explanation, so much I learned!

#feedback I don't understand why A is wrong. Isn't a logical implication of evolutionary psychology altruism? (what the whole passage is trying to explain) Could someone tell me what I'm missing?

D is wrong because pointing out that the odds of getting money are better for insurance doesn't change the fact that you still lose money overall...

Example:

Lottery: $2 on a ticket

- there is a 1% chance you win $100

- there is a 99% chance you win $0

- average payoff = (1%x$100)+(99%x$0)=$1

- so you spent $2 but only get $1 on average (you lose $1)

Insurance: $200 for a policy

- there is a 90% chance you get $180 back

- there is also a 10% chance you get 0$

- average payoff = (90%x$180)+(10%x$0)=$162

- so you spent $200 but only get $162 on average (you lose $38)

The stim clearly says the PAYOUT for insurance is LOWER than the COST (just like for lottery) so better odds of receiving a settlement does not change the fact that you are still losing money on average.

question 8...

The first sentence lists "confirm or disconfirm alibis" as one of the reasons for needing thorough witness info, not as something they must obtain from suspects.

So AC B is wrong for two reasons:

1. The first sentence is talking about police interviewers getting info from cooperating eyewitnesses, not from suspects

2. "alibis" are something the police need to "confirm or disconfirm" (as per the first sentence) -- not something they hope to extract directly from suspects ("elicit")

C's wording is a nightmare: "Point to a use to which an effective interview procedure might be put"

- Point to a use = show a purpose or practical application

- An effective interview procedure = a good interviewing method (cognitive interview)

- might be put = could be used for

So "alibis" is mentioned to show one particular purpose for which a good interviewing method can be used --- namely confirming or disconfirming someone's alibi

Q 22

Originally, A-B-C-D-E are all lumped into one broad species (call it Species X). If only sub-population A is struggling, Species X as a whole might still be deemed viable and NOT listed as endangered.

(so zero endangered species, at least in this hypothetical, if Species X was the only species to exist)

AC E would mean that once the splitters step in, population A becomes a standalone species---call it "Species A."

--> Because it's in trouble and no longer a part of the larger Species X, which was mostly healthy, even with subpopulation A being a part of it, Species A can then be classified as endangered by itself since it does not have the cushioning that being a part of Species X provided.

(so now there is one endangered species, as opposed to zero, before Species A was split off from Species X)

Basically, even if subpopulation A was endangered while it was a part of Species X, it wasn't necessarily recognized as such until it was split out since if a single species (X) is mostly healthy, then that entire species probably won't be listed as endangered just because one small subgroup (A) is in trouble. BUT once that subgroup gets classified as its OWN distinct species (under the splitters' approach), that newly recognized species DOES qualify for endangered-species protection on its own.

18

Passage says that when an embryo is developing it creates more nerve cells than it actually needs in the end. This means if the embryo makes, for example, 100 nerve cells, maybe only 50 are needed later on.

Passage also explains that nerve cells only survive-long term if they hook up with certain "target" cells in the body (like muscle or organ cells) that they're supposed to send signals to ("the number that survives eventually adjusting itself to the volume of tissue to be supplied with nerves")

--> this basically means the final number of nerve cells that live matches the amount of target tissue available. If there are only enough target cells for 50 nerve cells then only 50 nerve cells will survive

Ok...from the discussion of the role of NGF we know that it helps nerve cells survive. But which cells get this NGF that keeps them alive? It's those that successfully connect with their target cells. (3rd paragraph says nerve cells receive NGF "from the cells of muscles or other organs to which they will form connections")

This makes it clear that nerve cells get their "surivival juice" (NGF) from the specific target cells they connect with. (From that it's fair to say that those cells that don't find a target cell won't get NGF and will die.) Since we know that the embryo makes more nerve cells than needed and not all can find a target cell, it can be inferred that the ones that fail to make connections never get the NGF needed and so they die (need NGF to survive).

AC E is correct because some nerve cells never form any connection with a target cell. Instead, they remain "extra" and die off This is what the overproduction implies.

A: the passage never says it's the nerve cells that produce anti-NGF antibodies

B: no...without NGF, nerve cells die, not just become fewer. Also no indication that those w/o NGF are simply fewer but otherwise identical

C: this is the opposite of what the passage suggests...the passage implies that the number of nerve cells surviving matches the number the organism needs. the ones that do connect are indeed needed and continue to live

D: the passage never says that nerve cells transform into other tissues. they either survive as nerve cells or die if they fail to connect.

Could anyone help me with understanding why (B) is the correct assumption in this argument. PLEASE AND THANKSIES! T_T <3

Here's my thought process....

P 1: Modern tree-dwelling birds have curved claws that enable them to perch in trees.

I diagrammed this as: Curved claws → Enables perching.

P 2: Archeopteryx has similarly curved claws.

Conclusion: Therefore, Archeopteryx was probably a tree-dwelling creature.

OKAY but i'm a bit confused because if Curved claws → Enables perching, couldn't we replace "curved claws" with some other sufficient condition (e.g., strong wings, sticky feet) that also enables perching?

If so, wouldn't that make (B) unnecessary? I don't understand why (B) is a necessary assumption if there could be other ways Archeopteryx could have perched in trees?

AC A...

I did not choose this one because of "misguided"

But the passage explicitly says Chopin "did not share the local colorists' growing nostalgia for the past."

Chopin's refusal to share LCs' nostalgia strongly implies that she found their approach to be a mistaken way of responding to cultural change. Among the given ACs, describing the LCs' idealization as "misguided" best captures Chopin's likely judgment more than any other AC does.

Also, the whole passage is basically about Chopin's progression -- she starts influenced by sentimetnal novels, is then influenced by LC, and ultimately rejects their nostalgic stance in favor of the NW's ambitious direction (because she "did not share the local colorists’ growing nostalgia for the past")

--> this progression suggests a value judgment. she didn't remain aligned with the LC; she clearly sought something new and more truthful to women's evolving experiences.

I chose D T_T

But as Kevin says this is directly contradicted by the text since it states that the LCs "were attracted to the new words opening up to women, and felt free to move within these words as artists."

In hindsight, AC D is obviously wrong. D inaccurately suggests that the LCs were limited in their ability to address new opportunities for women, whereas the passage indicates they were indeed engaging with these changes

Q27

B: The first paragraph supports this. In that paragraph, the author explains that when cohesiveness is low group members fear recrimination and, as a result, refrain from expressing dissenting or original opinions (a very reasonable inference to draw out, though not explicitly stated in the paragraph)

--> This fear stifles critical examination of all relevant issues....In contrast, when a group is cohesive (the passage explicitly describes this as members who value one another), members feel safe and accepted, which encourages them to voice genuine concerns and more relevant arguments

This environment that cohesive groups have is crucial for critically analyzing every potential option

TLDR

The author states that w/o adequate cohesiveness, fear prevails and honest critique diminishes. the implication is that achieving a thorough, critical exploration of options is much harder if the group is not cohesive enough to encourage free expression

A: I chose this one because of the mention that groupthink behavior involves "closed-mindedness to warnings of problems and to alternative viewpoints."

I realized that this AC looked good to me because I made the assumption that external confrontation stems from internal closed-mindedness (which is not supported by the passage)

--> the passage's mention of closed-mindedness pertains to the group's internal process....In groupthink situations, members ignore internal dissent, alternative viewpoints within the group, and even outside warnings

BUT nowhere does it say that this closed-mindedness means being more confrontational externally......Closed-mindedness means failing to consider different viewpoints, not necessarily adopting a more aggressive or combative style in negotiations with adversaries (so obvious in hindsight)

Also, the word "negotiating" or any reference to how the group deals with external adversaries does not appear in the passage

C: Wrong because the passage actually suggests that freedom to voice differing options leads to better decision-making. When group members are comfortable challenging majority views without fear, the group can critically evaluate all options (which is the opposite of AC C)

D: No, the passage attributes groupthink to cohesiveness (an essential antecedent), not stress

E: Too strong. Sure, noncohesive groups can suffer from fear-driven conformity, but going as far as "all of the symptoms of groupthink" is not reasonable. What about symptoms like an illusion of unanimity or moral invulnerability?

Q26

I chose E :(

The phrase “to overcome this fear…” made me find “proposal" in AC E super attractive, but I realized that the passage does not actually present a method specifically designed to overcome low group cohesion.

Instead, the passage describes a condition: as group members feel more secure and valued, they naturally become more open and less fearful. That part of the passage lays out a principle rather than proposing a solution. It's not saying, “Here is how you fix low cohesion” so much as it is saying, “When groups are more cohesive, this particular problem (fear-driven compliance) diminishes.”

21 (passage A run-through)

(A) says: "Vague definitions can’t be used to make legal rules."

--> Too extreme! The passage just says vague definitions cause problems, not that they stop laws from being made.

(B) says: "Not being recognized hurts minority groups."

--> This is the main point of the passage about the Roma.

Q: 25

I eliminated D because of the word "current." Nothing in the passage suggested this debate was going on presently in the scientific community

Q13 T_T: looking for a characteristic of games that are "intentionally commodified"

AC A: "The game allows selling real items for virtual currency"

- If you actually think about what this is saying, it's so clear that this idea was never mentioned in the passage.

- This AC is basically saying that in the game, players would exchange physical, real-world items (like an actual object you could hold IRL) for the in-game money

→ BUT the passage only focuses on the virtual economy/the taxation of transactions involving virtual items (items that exist only w/i the game) and virtual currency. It distinguishes b/w:

1. selling virtual items for real money (a taxable transaction)

2. selling virtual items for virtual currency in games that are "intentionally commodified" (also taxable under certain tax doctrines)

- I was reading too carelessly and maybe thought this AC meant the same thing as "The game allows selling virtual items for real currency" (kind of a flipped version of the real AC)

→ I think this AC was such a trap because this flipped version would actually be supported by the text

AC D: "Players of the game own IP rights in their creations"

- the passage tells us that by granting IP rights, the game establishes that players own their creations

- This legal ownership means that your digital creations can be treated like real assets. They become valuable things you can trade (like how real commodities work)

The idea of a game being "intentionally commodified" is that its internal economy treats virtual items like tangible commodities. Granting intellectual property rights to players is one way to achieve that (it makes the digital creations real assets with legally recognized value.)

This was kind of confusing!!!

B: The argument is NOT saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE in principle to prove that under/overinflation does not harm the tread.....it's simply pointing out that no one has yet provided such proof

Huge difference between:

--> No one has provided evidence to the contrary

and

---> It's impossible in principle to provide evidence to the contrary

AC B addresses a scenario where the argument fails because it never considers the possibility that the claim is not even testable or provable

..... But the actual flaw is that it treats the lack of contrary proof as sufficient reason to believe it's claim, NOT that it fails to recognize something may be inherently unprovable

I think if AC B would be correct if the stimulus was tweaked like this:

"Tires may be under/over/neither.... It is fundamentally impossible to prove that underinflation/overinflation does not harm tire tread. Since no one could ever provide such proof, we are pretty safe in assuming that over/under inflation harms their tread."

In this version, the argument actually overlooks that an inherently unprovable claim can still be false. --> Even if it can never be proven that these conditions do not harm the tread, that does not mean they must cause harm. AC B would be correct here because it points out that just because something cannot be proven not to happen doesn’t make it true.

D is the correct AC because the argument is rejecting the possibility that the opposite claim (that under/overinflation does NOT harm tread) could be true, simply because it has not been proven

---> The argument fails to consider that it might still be the case that these conditions don't harm the tread.....lack of disproving evidence does not automatically make the harm claim correct

Q26

Why E is WRONG!

- The passage does provide some info about social Darwinism, but it does so in a very specific and limited way (by introducing two competing interpretations of social Darwinism.)

--> while this gives some insight into social Darwinism, it is NOT a general introduction to the concept!!!

.....A general intro would likely include at least some type of definition of social Darwinism.

(I guess it might be argued that it's sort of defined contextually by showing how distinct groups/Gilman interpreted and applied his ideas, but this is more of an implicit definition than an explicit one. Regardless, this way of defining/presenting Social Darwinism to the reader shows that the passage is more so focused on a debate and Gilman's role in it rather than introducing/clarifying an idea)

For Q25 I thought it was AC A because the passage discusses the negative consequences of specific performance in employment disputes, where coercion could lead to psychological friction. This honestly made me think the passage was predicting the consequences of using specific performance as a remedy.

But it's so clear now that this example is just part of a larger discussion about when specific performance should or shouldn't be used since the passage contrasts this with cases where specific performance IS appropriate (e.g. subjectively important items).

This contrast helps establish criteria for choosing b/w specific performance and monetary damages, which is why AC E is much better than AC A.

Passage summary

Problem: there is a limit to how small transistors can get with current methods

Solution: Belcher and Hu are studying peptides to see if they can help build smaller transistor-like molecules

--> Why peptides? Belcher's research showed that a peptide helped calcium carbonate crystallize into the specific structure found in abalone shells. Anddd computer chips are made of semiconductor materials that also form crystals!

--> Belcher and Hu thought that if they could find peptides that influence how these materials crystallize, they might have a way to control how transistors are built (to make them small)

Experiment/Results: They created a billion random peptides and tested which ones stuck to semiconductor materials. Some peptides bound to specific semiconductor materials in precise ways.

Next steps: Finding more peptides that can stick to 20 additional semiconductor materials and designing peptides that act like glue to build tiny circuits.

Q 22

Need to support the idea that Belcher and Hu's research could eventually be used commercially (ie real-world applications like making computer chips)

B: For almost any semiconductor material that is used in a computer circuit there are many other semiconductor materials that function in the same way and could be substituted for it

- Yup. Peptides only stick to certain materials. If many semiconductor materials can do the same job, Belcher and Hu can just swap out the ones that don't work with peptides. This makes it more likely they'll find a material that works, so their research can succeed.

How do you know that the common ancestor used the hissing to defend itself against the predators? Is it because of the word "behavior?" I kind of thought they might have been able to make the same sounds but be used for different functions which led me to AC B.

Q27

I chose B.

- This AC describes Hubble's direct observation that Andromeda is a galaxy, which settled a debate. But this does not follow the structure of Neptune's discovery...there is no incorrect prediction here that needed an auxiliary assumption to be adjusted.

--> this AC just describes a an observational discovery rather than an inferred existence followed by later confirmation.

E is correct.

Both AC E and the discovery of Neptune in passage B follow the same pattern:

1. a mismatch b/w prediction and observation

2. a new, unseen entity proposed to resolve the issue

3. the entity is later confirmed

Q12

I chose C

For C to be correct, the passage would need to say that opposing biotechnology patents directly causes funding difficulties and that this is a general problem, meaning it happens frequently or broadly

--> Since the passage just says some researchers have funding problems, and since it doesn't connect funding struggles to their stance on patents, this AC is too strong