13- SA

Science -----> explain emotional phenomena

Emotional phenomena -----> explained by physics, chemistry, or neurology

Assumption = physical phenomena --------> explained by physics, chemistry, or neurology

C = Human emotions -------> physical phenomena

E) Exactly

8 - MSS

Facts :

Plant Species island (I) vs Mainland (M)

Extinction much faster rate (I)

Biologists hypothesis = I havent adapted to defenses against being eaten by large land mammals M Have.

Pop of Large land mammals established on island ----------> island is colonized by humans

My prediction = Since humans moving to the islands, the extinction rate of the plants has gone up at a faster rate.

A) Most out of scope

B) Not native not discussed, only NATIVE was discussed

C) Loss of habitat not discussed

D) Yes!! I dont like that it says INCREASED DRAMATICALLY i feel the older PTS didnt make you have to feel its so extreme, but like he says we sometimes have to hold our NOSE and choose it.

E) Preference of the land mammals not discussed

5= Strengthening

Type of strengthening = Correlation Causation

Goal = make the correlation stronger

Correlation = More tumeric Less Alzheimers

Support = More Tumeric is consumed per capita in India than anywhere else and there is way less Alzheimers there.

Conclusion = Eating Turmeric (commonly found in curries) helps prevent Alzheimer disease

A) Weakening answer choice, Showing C could be the cause instead of A causing B

B) Once again a weakening answer choice, if this is true it isnt preventable, its caused by Alzheimer

C) Weakening (Showing a difference in the sample of india opposed to other countries)

D) Out of scope possibly weakens the support if they were never studied

E) Yes! We know curry contains tumeric and they have the least Alzheimers in the places they eat curry this perfectly aids our correlation causation format

4 = Flaw

P= Anxious tone shows the problem is with the psychological state of the writers rather than with the actual condition of the nation

C= No cause for alarm from the essays that our nation is on a decline.

Flaw = So it doesnt matter at all what the writers wrote because of their psychological state? What if there were legit issues and concerns written in the essay?

Takes for granted the issues in the essay are irrelevant due to the psychological state of the writers.

Overlooks there might be legit concerns in the essays

A) Yes exactly

B) No comparison flaw here

C) Not present here

D) he actually doesnt overlook this. he just overlooks the information in the essay about concerns of the nation

E) This first confused me even though i already chose A, but because i thought by him saying the pschological state of the writers it made me think oh maybe without him realizing it hes saying the reason why they are nervous or anxious is because what is happening. But he doesnt offer evidence about actually the nation being in decline so this doesnt happen here just made my mind think but have to stay focused on central topic (nation decline)

3 - NA

P= Many employees treat their employers fairly

Assumption = If many employees treat their employers fairly then using others as a means to one's own end is not morally reprehensible or harmful to others.

Employers use their employees as a means to one's own end

C= Using others as a means to one's own end is not morally reprehensible or harmful to others.

C) Some or all employers use their employees as a means to ones own end! Perfect! Without this the argument falls apart

P= AD -----> CA (cooperative activity) --------> SMC (sophisticated means of communication)

CA -------> Language (L)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C= Language (L) developed to facilitate animal domestication (AD)

AD -----> L

Flaw = concluding that because something is necessary (L) to have something else (AD), (L) was developed for solely that purpose.

A) This would be I have Language therefore i must have Animal domestication because i have something necessary for it

B) unique cause? #help anyone know how to describe this flaw? <3

C) Example of this flaw: morning ritual makes the sun come out. Every morning the sun always comes out after i do my ritual.

D) circular reasoning ex: ( Language was developed to facilitate animal domestication. It was developed to facilitate animal domestication.

E) Exactly!

1 - Weaken

Most nutritionist recommend eating fish twice a week (health benefits in fish)

P= Tilapia lacks the strong fish taste that some dont like.

Assumption = Tilapia has the same health benefits that the nutritionist recommended in fish in general.

C= Eating tilapia perfect choice for those who want the BENEFITS of eating fish but dont like taste of fish

A) Doesnt weaken argument, excessive fish eating out of scope

B) Again we are only concerned with health benefits and taste not the evasiveness of tilapia in society

C) Yes!!! Destroys the assumption needed for the argument to stand

D) Out of scope

E) strengthening answer choice - usually always have 1 strengthening one on weakening

1 - Weaken

Support =Lewis is in favor of placing limits on development. Chu is pro-development candidate and the pro- development candidate has won the last 6 elections

Reasoning - the past 6 elections have been won by the people in this group therefore chu who is in this group will defeat lewis.

Flaw- just because the past 6 people shared this property how does that guarantee the result?

Conclusion = Chu will probably beat lewis

A) Out of scope. experiance in national or city have nothing to do with the argument

B) Strengthening answer choice - always one that does this in a weakening question

C) Yes! MOST VOTERS attribute a problem as a result of UNDERDEVELOPMENT what does that mean? that means this would weaken the support that they will vote for chu because hes pro development

D) Out of scope

E) Out of scope

omg im literally on the same boat as you! games im perfect, Logical reasoning 2-4 wrong my freaking problem is just reading comp holding me back -______- ! I always averaged -7 or -8 but today just took a PT and hit -4!!! There is hope for us!! Lets keep pushing forward and crack that 170!!! (3(/p)

11 - SA

Principle: Morally praiseworthy to be honest ----> one is honest out of respect for morality

Premise:

he was motivated by the concern of his own well being (even tho it was honest)

Assumption = concern of his own well being ------> morality

Conclusion = When told judge truth of his business partners fraudulence -------> Downing (morally praisworthy to be honest)

C) Exactly

2- SA

Athenian democracy ---> consisted of all eligible voters

Athenian democracy -----> Made all political decisions by direct vote after public debate in the assembly

Assumption = True Democracy ------> Athenian democracy ------> consisted of all eligible voters -------> Made all political decisions by direct vote after public debate in the assembly

Conclusion = True Democracy ------> Athenian democracy

D) Exactly

R:

Premise: He has to drive right by his house anyways

Major premise: Giving him a ride doesnt increase the amount he spends on fuel

Conclusion = I shouldnt have to pay

B= "Flawed logic" Analogy presented. Her view is R wrong that he shouldnt have to pay

B. exactly their disagreement

Researchers studying athletes

2 groups : Athletes played for love of sport G1 vs athletes playing for trophy G2

G1 vision sharper - why? concentration necessary for acute vision typically higher to those whose focus is on the activity itself.

Inferred = people who play for the love of the sport have a higher focus on that activity than those who play for a trophy.

A) Not important trophy? not supported.

B) Main goal to win trophy ----> lack concentration necessary for adequate vision

Unsupported. It just says G1 has a higher lvl of this, never says G2 will lack this

C) Yes! Exactly my predicted inference

D) More than one thing? impossible? Not supported

E) We cannot infer performance, we can infer the lvl of focus. But that doesnt mean G2 will perform worse than G1 what if G2 has other qualities that G1 lacks. More talent? More Steroids? HAHAHA

3- SA

book offering management advice ‑m→ written from perspective of a CEO

managers ‑m→ ceo and same perspective as CEO

conclusion = advice in management books of little use to most managers

Assumption = If you dont have same perspective as person offering advice then the book / advice is of little use

D) Exactly

1- RRE

This specific warm blooded animal starts off with thin skin for breathing purposes and gradually with age their skin thickens. All the other warm blooded species need thick skin their whole lives for 2 reasons (maintain body temperature and to reduce water loss)

So we need something that shows why this animal can maintain body temp and reduce water loss even when it has thin skin!

A) Respiratory muscles growing after age would just mean possibly that their skin will thicken as they got older. doesnt resolve how they can chill with thin skin while younger

B) This was an interesting answer because it shows a difference btwn the animal and the others that their body temp is warmer. but why is it warmer? thats what we need to figure out. I feel alot of trap answers on rre do this. just list a random supporting fact that doesnt resolve crap but just is there

C) Again this does nothing to the argument. If they experiance more water loss as they get older wouldnt that be strange considering that their skin thickens with age?

D) Yes! the mouthers pouch hooks them up! it satisfies the things that the thick skin on the other animals does!

E) This says some live where its dry trying to get us to make a connection oh dry less water loss and then also daytime temperatures high. but some? that doesnt explain all. and these are crazy assumptions to make in the first place to put these all together too many assumptions!

15- MSS

Facts:

dietary needs vary from person to person

why? because different foods contain nutrients that are helpful for treating or preventing different health problems

everyone should eat many fruits and vegetables

why? because they protect against a wide range of health problems

inference = vegetables contain many different nutrients helpful for treating or preventing health problems.

A) Not supported by the stimulus

B) Foods contain a wide variety of nutrients to protect against health problems -----> fruits and vegetables

Wrong because they arent the only foods that can accomplish this! what about salmon or chicken?

C) 2 people ----> different health problems ------> different dietary needs

D) If most FAD diets prescribe a single narrow range of nutrients to everyone, and we just read that based on health problems nutrition needs to vary from a one size fits all approach, so this answer would be most strongly supported even though i think i hate this question and answer so much

--

2- RRE

- only one pair of loon birds occupies each lake

2 options for occupation of lakes

- take lake from another pair

- choose a lake no one is at

Surprisingly

even when nearby lake is free more than half time they take lake from another pair

Need something to show the lakes that other people are at is better than lakes no one went to

A) Weakens what we need to show

B) Contests out of scope

C) Out of scope

D) Yes! this shows why the prefer the lake that another pair is at, they can observe and see how the pair does there then snatch it

E) just facts nothing to support what we need

14 = SA

Legit Artwork with aim of arousing anger → intentionally concrete intervention of the world

*Assumption= Legit Artwork with aim of arousing anger → intentionally concrete intervention of the world → concern for beauty

concern for beauty→ intentionally concrete intervention of the world*

conclusion = Critics that say (legit artwork → concern for beauty) false

A) Concern Beauty → legit artworks NO

B) legit artworks → concerned with beauty NO

C) secondary concern Out of scope NO

D) Yes! intentionally concrete intervention of the world → concern for beauty

E) Legit artwork → intervention NO

9 - Weakening

Premise = I recently visited K grocery, the same place Jason buys his produce, and produce was unloaded there from a farm that everything contains chemical pesticides from.

Assumption = The place Jason buys his produce from contains produce with chem pesticides → not true that no food on Jason's Rest Menu contains no chem pesticides

Assumption = This supplier is the only supplier of produce that Jason could buy from this supermarket

Conclusion = not true that no food on Jason's Rest Menu contains no chem pesticides

So now we just need something that shows Jason could still buy without it having chem pesticides or in other words, not buying from that farm.

A) This would strengthen the argument, especially if Jason doesn't know this fact. Then for sure his menu could contain chemical pesticides

*B) Trap answer choice! But this doesnt weaken the argument. We still have the fact that Jason buys his produce from a place that has chemical pesticide produce. So even if 99% of the other things are natural, that 1% still could contain chem pesticides. Need to show its possible he bought natural stuff from the actual store stated

C) Yes! This shows ok that distributor has all chemically processed stuff. But because it is labeled Jason can avoid that stuff and still stick to natural! *

D) Still Chemical pesticides does nothing to the argument

E) Doesnt protect Jasons menu, more like AC A how Jason might not know. If he doesnt know his menu is still wrong.

6 - MBT

*Ability to judge greatness of lit works → years specialized training

literature professor → years specialized training

vast majority of public → years specialized training → Ability to judge greatness of lit works

vast majority of public → years specialized training → literature professor *

A) literature professor → Ability to judge greatness of lit works (not supported, would be super common flaw on parallel flaw questions)

B) Saying exactly same thing as A

C) we can't infer a conclusion from these facts that wasnt said

D) Literature professor → belong to public (trap answer but isnt vast majority of public)

E) Yes vast majority of public → Ability to judge greatness of lit works

2- NA

Support = Ancient Humans hunted mammoths until they disappeared

Assumption = AH hunted mammoths → fossil bone of mammoth found in ancient settlement of AH → Settlement was occupied by AH when Mammoths lived in the area.

Conclusion = A fossil bone with an engraving that depicts a mammoth found in an ancient settlement in eastern north america shows that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in the area.

A) Yes! If it wasnt made at the time period that the settlement was occupied by AH argument would be destroyed that AH were living in same time.

B) I feel like this is attacking the premise, not needed

C) Why would we need no Mammoths left in all of north america

D) Unique engraving technique? if it isnt unique what does that do for us? nada

E) If there is a scientific way to find out when made, great it can help us. If there isn't doesn't hurt argument.

1 - Flaw

Support - I often go to universities to give talks, and the students at my talks have a deep interest in philosophical issues

Assumption - The students at my university talks have a deep interest in philosophical issues → (university students ‑m→ interest in philosophical issues) wrong

_

Conclusion = from my own experience (university students ‑m→ interest in philosophical issues) wrong

Flaw = So his university talks is representative of MOST students? This is a sample flaw.

A) Equivocation flaw - not present here. Example (A feather is light, and what's light can't be dark, so a feather can't be dark.)

B) Yes! = Sample Flaw

C) Not present here example would be ( Since it's super popular this subject. The subject for sure has value in the university.)

D) Unproven vs untrue Flaw kind of Example would be (because there is no proof that the interest in this topic is decreasing, It must then be increasing!)

E) Definitely doesn't take this for granted. Maybe an example of this flaw would be (Since I love chemistry it is great that university students love it as well.)

24/26 on this RC section

4/5 on this passage

1. Authors attitude

A) It didn't change the union leaders laws so this is unsupported

B) Impact on legislation again unchanged

C) to the demonstrators unknown

D) Yes! He said nothing really changed from it except it got public awarness! so for sure his opinion was positive on this aspect of the campaign

E) No, because their negotiations were said to fail by others.

2.

A) Yes! Directly it didn't do any of these things, explicitly stated this assertion

3) one of the two questions i got wrong total in the 4 sections because i'm a dummy misread E as the leaders of CORE for some reason, even tho that makes no sense. -_-

Lesson learned - make sure you understand the answer choice before eliminating it, out of all the hard ones i could have gotten wrong ofc i get this one wrong (crying emojis) hahaha

4) Explicitly stated

38-39

D) and they even kept it as many to make our lives easier!

5)

A) Lines 61-62 this answer choice is supported. First we read that their moderate political ties were at jeopardy taking the position that they took, but from this they say nvm they kept their political position the whole campaign. So from this we can infer the answer choice :)

B) Various other campaigns after? not supported

C) Specifically the construction industry and before? unsupported

D) Criticized DIRECTLY from CORE? all it said was SOME civil rights activists considered it incomplete, literally could mean 1 civil right activist thought this, so we would have to assume ALL civil rights activists are from CORE, which we know is only 1 organization out of many others! So unsupported

E) Super tricky, because it says DIRECTLY INVOLVED, and in the text it says basically they never were in the leading position they were put in this time. But in the text it said they were often times mediators in social govt issues. Who am I to say that makes them indirectly involved or DIRECTLY involved. I felt it was unclear which that would mean, meaning we would be making an assumption unwarranted.

8)

only CDE were possible candidates

D) have thus far had little impact? out of scope

E) Have already had detrimental effects? again out of scope

Cookie cutter elimination of D and E both making stronger details than given in the passage

C) is perfect!

9)

C) explicitly stated lines 56-57

10) uniform judicial procedures? no way jose we just need something of explicitly stated principals for making a treaty

B) does this perfectly

11)

*D) 50-52

12) Hated this one, but still got it right based on POE

A) the broad precepts part sucks, because I felt we needed less broad and more specific. But it is a MSS so you dont get that full feeling of satisfaction in it -_-

B) regulatory action from ILC out of scope

C) on entire river systems? Out of scope

D) existing treaties? out of scope

E) Have generally favored? ngl this one was alittle tempting because i didnt like A, but it was NEVER said in the passage they have generally favored this, it just said they would luckily benefit more than others. So we cant make that extra assumption here. A actually is MSS out of all these ACs

13)

was down to D and E

D) conflicts sharply in frequency and intensity, we don't know this for sure. We know the problems will arise due to the demand of water. But fo we know the intensity and frequency have risen? Still couldnt eliminate it until reading E

E) Didnt like "Much" Some would have been 100% supported and easier to accept, but it does say in the passage these principals are manifested in past legal decisions. So it is the best answer choice.

14) From POE

A) political motivations? no

B) skepticism sounded good until the second part, (viable type of usage agreement -------> treaty) he thinks treaties are the way to go and isnt arguing their usage, hes arguing the treaties details need to be changed to account for changes in environment

C) Treaty violations? out of scope

D) Satisfaction from diverging from int customary practice? i felt it was the oppoisite not diverging but conforming to

E leaves us with E which is positive which again sucks knowing he was skeptical of this treaty, but he was positive of its intentions and goals so this has to be the answer, it's the only one that works

15) was down to A and D but then reread A and saw it literally wasnt doing this D is it!

7/7

1)

A) Tells us the conclusion and premise very well.

B) Trap answer choice but term shifts from often to "best" kill this choice as well as the vagueness of cinematic work. We are directly talking about nonfiction film from pre 1915

2)

B) explicitly stated lines 28-29

3)

A) for sure he would agree with this. Whole passage about how the presentation is losing authenticity because of how the films are being shown

B) This choice confused me because it says works of art and I didn't immediately think of film in this way, but was able to eliminate the other choices and the second you realize a film is a work of art it's easy because the authors whole point was these nonfiction films should go with different types of films, not the same works.

C) He would agree with this, because his whole argument why we shouldnt watch the old nonfiction films back to back was they didnt do that back in the day.

D) more tempted with this one, but then i remembered he said same artist or same type of work, and then he said about film the material could be great but if presented with the same things would make it boring, which tells us the pieces of art put together in an exhibit each has an effect on the overall perception of that work

E) 100% supported

4)

C) explicitly stated

5)

was down to C and B and i felt historical in C was tempting but wasn't actually what the last sentence was doing. It was using the past historical basis to make implications on the way of presentation of the nonfiction films from 1915

6)

B) For sure! That is one of the main reasons the early nonfiction films shouldn't be presented together besides authenticity, it can have a boring effect on them

7)

Obviously C and D stick out on this one how i eliminated C was "they are less authentic than other versions." what other versions? that part felt out of scope to me so I chose D and moved on