I'm a bit confused by question 5. I was stuck between C and E and chose E.

The passage says: "Because the memoirs were written so long after the events they describe, some historians question their reliability." But how are you supposed to know whether their questioning of the reliability stems from potential inaccuracies or lack of a way to verify them?

Question 25 greatly frustrated me because for a while, I thought that both (A) and (D) were very, very wrong. I knew that (A) was wrong because the length of the initial line has absolutely nothing to do with the number of protrusions. There will always be one in the first stage, five in the second, thirteen in the third, etc.

I also thought (D) was wrong because I initially thought the "it" was referring to "the Koch curve" instead of "every stage". Under that mistaken assumption, I thought (D) could never be true because the lengths of the line segments in the third stage are always going to be shorter than those in the second stage, etc.

I got so frustrated flipping between answer choices (A) and (D) that I just decided that (A) was even more egregiously wrong than (D) and luckily chose it. It wasn't until BR that I realized "it"referred to the stage of the Koch curve, in which case (D) is definitely true. That was a really difficult piece of referential phrasing to decipher properly!

Could I get some more clarification about why (D) is incorrect? If many workers are already making more than the minimum wage then raising it won't NECESSARILY put it at a level above what many workers are already making, would it? That would seem to weaken the subconclusion that businesses would not be able to employ as many workers for.......

Okay, I just realized the problem while typing this. I think I wasn't paying attention to the words "for such jobs" (referential phrasing referring to minimum wage jobs). In that case, (D) is totally irrelevant because the scope of the argument is limited to just the workers that ARE earning minimum wage and that answer choice concerns other workers not discussed in the argument.

I'm having a REALLY difficult time understanding where the author's POV was revealed in this passage. This confusion led to me getting questions 1 and 3 wrong.

Can someone please explain to me what specific words of the third paragraph show that the author accepts the hypothesis and is not merely describing what some people think? Or is it always the case that you should assume a writer supports another person's idea if he presents evidence in favor of it and doesn't provide any criticism?

They tricked me into choosing answer choice B because they knew I'd bite on the word "disappointed." I really need to be more careful about the wording on the answer choices for these main point questions...

Can someone clarify for me in more detail why answer choice (D) is incorrect?

TL;DR:

If X then Y; otherwise not Y.

If and only if X occurs will Y occur.

^Statements written like those two are always biconditionals. They should be written out like this: X (---) Y (or the contrapositive, ~X (---) ~Y)

---

If Sarah is cool, she will go to the party with her sister; otherwise she will not. If you take that statement apart, it actually says two things:

1.) Sarah is cool --> Sarah goes to party with sister

2.) ~Sarah is cool (what the "otherwise" means here) --> ~Sarah goes to the party

If you take the contrapositive of 2, it turns into this:

If Sarah goes to the party with her sister then she is cool.

So now we know that if Sarah is cool she goes to the party and if she doesn't go to the party then she's not cool. The two ideas are *directly* tied to each other. Either it is the case that Sarah is cool *and* going to the party OR it is the case that Sarah is not cool and not going to the party. In other words:

Sarah is cool (---) Sarah goes to party with sister

Making one true forces the other to be true and making one false forces the other to be false. That statement is logically equivalent to an "if and only if" statement.

If and only if Sarah is cool will she go the party with her sister.

That statement means that (1) If Sarah is cool then she will go the party with her sister (X --> Y) and (2) Only if Sarah is cool will she go to the party with her sister (Y --> X). Statement 2 is the contrapositive of the second statement from the first translation up above.

I don't understand how answer choice C isn't attacking the premise that "it is implausible that hunting by these small bands of humans could have had such an effect." I assumed that the correct answer choice had to either find a third explanation (other than hunting and microorganisms) or destroy the link between microorganisms and extinction. I thought D destroyed that link because it basically said that just because creatures had these disease-causing microorganisms doesn't mean they necessarily contracted the diseases and died from them. Therefore, the microorganisms themselves didn't necessarily cause the extinction. Overall, I thought D did a better job of weakening the link whereas C just seemed to be trying to negate a premise.

Yeah, just deleted 7sage's cookie and it worked like a charm. Don't know why I didn't try that before. Thanks!

(A) forces you to make the gigantic assumption that the council members in favor of using the courthouse have both considered the possibility of using the shoe factory and made arguments against it, neither of which are indicated by the passage.

We're not certain that there's any "lack of evidence against a view" here. There's only a lack of evidence in favor of a view. That's what (B) says. Another important part of (A)'s trap is that it includes the word "evidence," which is contained within the passage, while (B) does not. That wording can get you if you're on the fence and are unable to see the important distinction between (A) and (B).

I'm using Chrome for PC and I can only access 7sage through incognito mode even after following the instructions. For what it's worth, when I try to clear my cache the option reads "Cached images and files" rather than "Empty the cache" as it does in the tutorial you posted. Am I clearing my cache incorrectly or is there some other problem here?

(C) was actually an effective trap answer choice for me. I mistakenly took "all social processes involve interaction that is neither rigid nor artificial" to imply that any interaction that is rigid or artificial → social process. I completely neglected to consider that social processes can involve interaction neither rigid nor artificial as well as rigid/artificial interaction. Even more importantly, I forgot to account for "effectiveness". D'oh.