Difference between AC-A and C

AC-A: No, because "the entire election process is undermined" is way too broad considering the original expansion was with voting

AC-A would be right if the original situation in the passage had been that despite more widespread education for privileged classes of women, Renaissance social society, including education, also increased restrictions on women

AC-C: Yes, have to make a slight jump that "additional workers are employed/prevented from rising" in AC matches to "privileged women widespread education and general restrictions on women overall" but more reasonable than that of AC-A

Need to closely read here:

"A potential objection is that the reasoning given by the judge, however legally adequate, may not be the judge's real reasoning, thus allowing for the presence of undetected bias."

• Reasoning as used in the beginning of the sentence refers to "the legal reasoning on the basis of which their ultimate judgments are made"

• "Judge's real reasoning" refers to the "undetected bias", which matches AC-C

Q11 is referring to P2, because that's where the author discusses the weakness of current statutes:

AC-C: "Focusing on appearances may cause sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers, or even to judges themselves, to be overlooked."

AC-B is in P3 so not mentioned yet

B v. D

B No "than there should be" we don't know what the # of procedural protections should or should not be all we know is that "the greater procedural protections of criminal law make deterrence through criminal prosecution extremely expensive."

D Yes "most" is very strong here but better supported by textual evidence:

Furthermore, because criminal liability causes a greater loss of reputation, its overall cost to corporations is far higher than that of civil liability; this additional cost is borne by society at large in the form of higher product prices.

Every time there is criminal liability / corporations, the costs are "far higher" than that of civil liability, so we could say even in MOST cases that is true.

The jump to choose AC-D is more reasonable than that of AC-B

Using Passage A:

A - No, author would disagree. AC-A presents Laura J. Rosenthal's view which author is criticizing

B - No author says opposite. "That no moral standard is universal does not of itself entail that moral standards are nothing but expressions of power."

C - No, we don't know how views today compare to views held by MOST of predecessors

D - Maybe, though "ultimately absolves" is so strong

"What in moral terms is a matter of honesty or dishonesty—plagiarism being dishonest—is instead reduced to "the cultural location of the text and the position of the author.""

E - Yes

See text:

The consequence of a historical approach that seeks to "delegitimize" the distinction between imitation and plagiarism is that it demeans and degrades moral thought

Passage B

D - No support about absolved

E - Yes see text

And it is also true that there has been some shoddy scholarship that anachronistically projects modern-day ideologies having to do with gender, race, or class onto historically remote controversies

Q14 - I think the AC NEEDS to address plagiarism, that's the whole point!

On Passage A alone:

A- No, irrelevant

B- No, not mentioned and even if mentioned not the main point

C- Could keep it up but again where is plagiarism?

D- No, we don't talk about significant differences

E- Yes - we need to consider morality in discussing plagiarism (P2: "What in moral terms is a matter of honesty or dishonesty- plagiarism being dishonest-")

On passage B:

C No - only mentioned once in B to reference Passage A

E Yes - discusses how fluidity in plagiarism being wrong is applied (P1)

and MP in P3: It is merely to acknowledge that whatever we might think is the correct way of apprehending plagiarism—and there is hardly a consensus on the matter even today—our predecessors may not, and often did not, share our perspectives.

Flaw - false dilemma

Just because Devan doesn't meet criteria for friendship, why does he have to be an enemy? Why can't he just be an acquaintance, stranger, etc?

Only options presented in stimulus are friend or no friend (then going as so far as to say enemy)

Going through AC's

A No

fails two of the three necessary conditions to conclude not sufficient

we need something more drastic than not sufficient, also would need to fail three of three necessary conditions

B No

we need something more drastic than "not as healthy as it should be" if anything this is equivalent to not thriving.

C Yes

While it may not match the conditional logic, it matches the dilemma. It assumes your reviews are only hostile or not and then stretches no hostility = love.

What about reviews that could be in between (ambivalent/unsure/mediocre)?

Similarly, the stimulus assumes friendship or no friendship and then says no friendship is enemy.

D No

doesn't match the stimulus, where are the two choices and then taking one to the extreme?

E No

sufficiency necessity flaw

I think the key to getting this correct is seeing how each AC connects to the stimulus/method of argumentation in the stimulus, which is centered around the reproductive mechanism. Only one does (B).

AC's

A - No, focus on sexual reproduction in this AC whereas the stimulus is just focused on reproduction

B- Yes, challenges assumption that nanobes can't have reproductive mechanism (prereq for life) because they can actually combine to reproduce

C- No, what is relevance of mars??? also do these fossilized remains reproduce or not?

D- No, this is trying to get at the size issue, but we are concerned with reproductive capabilities. Does the inferior microscope affect the reproductive capabilities? Does the stimulus use previous or current definition of life? Unclear impact on stimulus.

E- No, irrelevant because about animals. Also reproduction?

We would expect that the rescue squads would be a good thing and should stay but the experienced climbers challenge that and say only if we abolish rescue squads can we reduce injuries/deaths. So, we need to find an AC that addresses the potential harms/unforeseen consequences of rescue squads.

AC's

A - No. Fails to impact argument. If anything, we should keep rescue squads/try to recruit more people.

B - No. This is a reason we should keep rescue squads.

C - No. C is trying to say that experienced climbers don't expect rescue squad members to rescue them but this evades the line of logic in the stimulus that only when we abolish rescue squads will we reduce injuries/deaths.

D - No. This is a reason to keep rescue squads then. If people aren't prepared, then it's important to have rescue squads to be able to save people.

E - Yes. Gets at our paradox. People think that with rescue squads, there is a "lower risk" of climbing a particular mountain and thereby they risk climbing mountains they wouldn't normally. Experienced climbers then recommend abolishing rescue squads so people will not attempt mountains they do not have the background/training for.

Tough question because you need to understand what the stimulus is saying and what is relevant as well as how each AC attempts to or fails to impact the argument - right AC is not necessarily immediately obvious

Breaking down Stimulus

• extroverted have milder BP surge than introverted people when speaking

• suggests that stress (higher stress for introverts to speak than extroverts) causes BP surge

• issue: "physical exertion" which is mentioned nowhere in the remainder of the stimulus, need an AC that addresses this issue i.e. that NOT physical exertion

Going through AC's

A - No, irrelevant

It's not totally clear how this impacts the argument at all - who is taking these medications? introverts? extroverts? both? neither?

B - No, irrelevant

Like AC-A, how does this impact the argument? We don't know who has "lower typical BP"

Even if we were to make the jump that the introverts have lower typical blood pressure and that's why their BP increases more under stress, we don't know if that's from psychological stress or physical exertion

C - No, irrelevant

We don't care if introverted people "sense the rises in BP", also is this subset of introverted people who do not have chronically high BP even relevant to the stimulus? Don't know/unclear

D - Yes, POE

Important to not eliminate this answer choice just because it is "Deaf people" and seems at initial glance irrelevant to stimulus

I think you also get to AC-D through POE

AC-D is saying that

When deaf people sign (communicate): inc BP

When deaf people move hands (physical exertion): no change in BP

essentially giving additional support to conclusion that communication instead of physical exertion increases BP

E - No, weakens

This AC basically gets at that the "milder surges" in BP when comparing extroverts v introverts can be explained by the chronic high BP/medication to lower BP rather than psychological stress

I think you can easily eliminate A and B because we know the statement is an analogy.

Then, eliminate D because it's not an objection to the argument's overall conclusion.

Between C and E, C is far better because the purpose of the analogy is to drive home the conclusion. C is also a clear premise with the indicator words "After all."

Conclusion: want people to pay attention-> announce only conclusive results (from definitive studies)

people who are constantly subjected to fire drills eventually come to ignore the fire alarm.

• constantly subjected to fire drills = constantly bombarded by warnings (based on initial studies' tentative conclusions)

• ignore the fire alarm = (not explicitly stated) but not pay attention to health warnings

I think you get to the right answer here through POE"

Map "simple phenomenon" from sociologists onto "deliberate decisions by individual voters to support the party whose policies they believe will yield them the greatest economic advantage"

That's how you get to AC-A

Eliminating

B

• We don't know anything about causes (more than one cause) not explicitly said in stimulus

C

• Adding a bunch of information we don't know: religious and cultural causes

D

• Opposite

• "popular support for various political parties" is the "complex phenomenon"

E

• We don't know what voters usually do or do not do

P: TPT -> BT

P: WP -> A

----

C:: WP -> /TPT

Linking P to C

WP -> A

/BT ->/TPT

Missing A-> /BT or BT -> /A AC-E

I think it's fairly easy to eliminate A, B, E, then down to C v D

A- no "focus on other people's troubles" is wholly irrelevant because the stimulus is about "focus on the need for positive change in those relationships"

B- no we want our patient to be healed not "cannot be healed"

C - no - "change their relationships" unclear whether positive or negative change

conclusion: heal -> psychotherapist must focus on positive change in relationships

AC- C: change relationships ->find relief/heal

flipped, we need heal in the sufficient condition

D - yes

AIC -> /PTHPH

PTHPH -> /AIC OR if a psychotherapist helps a patient heal, then they do not solely address the internal causes of the patient's troubles, which links well to conclusion

if we wanted to negate AC-D then we can have PTHPH and AIC OR a psychotherapist helps a patient heal and solely addresses internal causes, then we destroy argument because why would we need to focus on positive change (as conclusion states)

E- no -opposite of stim, we need to focus on positive change in relationships to help patient, not just internal

People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems

• Premise

Although there is indisputable evidence that ozone, an air pollutant, can be dangerous for severe asthmatics even if found in levels much lower than maximum levels permitted by law, most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community.

• Premise

Hence, there is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time.

• Conclusion

Comparing AC's

A - No because these are independent premises

i.e. ask: Why are most people well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community?

The answer cannot be "People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems" because we are not told that contaminated water is an obvious public health problem

B Yes, matches above

C - No, See A, we are not told that contaminated water is the most obvious public health problem

Sentence 1: Context

• alternate theory

Sentence 2: Conclusion

• note concession "even if this occurred" and "clearly"

Sentence 3: Premise to support IC

• purpose of sentence 3 is to get at that if sentence 1 were true (radio active elements created when universe began) they would've likely decayed by now since our universe is presumably much older than a few million years old

• however as sentence 4 continues, this is not aligned with our reality

Sentence 4: IC - contrapositive

• So, if no new radioactive elements had been created after the universe began, almost no radioactive elements would be left in the universe today, but there is an abundance of such elements.

• /NRECAUB -> /REWBLUT

• REWBLUT -> NRECAUB

• new radioactive elements had been created after the universe began

This is definitely a very strange question - I think the AC's also use language not mentioned in the stimulus, which makes the question tricky.

Breaking down stimulus

• stimulus says people should practice what they preach, with exceptions - both doctors and logicians fall into the exceptions category

• "no more necessary" = both unnecessary i.e. logicians don't need to be logical in their discussions of logic and physicians don't need to have healthy lifestyles in order to treat people

Issue with stimulus

• However, logicians need to be logical, physicians don't NEED to have healthy lifestyles to treat people

• Treating logicians and physicians as the same, so we need an AC that gets at the difference

Going through AC's

Can eliminate B and E alone because not focused on comparison between logicians and physicians

D seems irrelevant, we don't care about how difficult it is

A - Yes gets at issue between conflating logicians not having logic and patients not having unhealthy lifestyle

C - No

"physicians who are incompetent" is not the same as physicians who don't have a healthy lifestyle, stimulus not concerned with "cause more harm" but rather with exceptions to practicing what you preach

Stimulus Conclusion

It is a mistake, however, to assume that answering this question [what caused the current recession] is essential to improving the economy.

This matches AC - D much better than AC - B. We are not talking about funding the solution.

AC-B v AC-C

Note that the conclusion is "we can meet our energy needs in a way that better protects the environment from harm than we do at present"

B- Yes (least relevant)

Sewage to clean water is not necessarily a source of energy, at least we don't have enough information to connect sewage to clean water and sewage sludge to becoming an alternative source of energy

Also, note that this AC says "improved in recent decades" What if it only improved .1%? What if it improved 200%? Compare this to other AC's that are more definitive in harm

C- No (is relevant).

It seems tricky to choose the "cost" AC but note that the cost of producing and using oil from sewage sludge (which we know can generate power from the stimulus) is a way of "meeting our energy needs." C is more directly tied to the language and context of the stimulus.

The difference between B and D is being clear on what the conclusion is asking you to do. "No one - including those making marital vows - should take (interpret) "love" in this context to be referring to feelings."

Very tough question, I think POE here is important:

We will need to engage the spacecraft premise to get to conclusion, only AC's that mention spacecraft are C and D.

Then D is only one that engages with determine.

---

Using formal logic:

Conclusion:

SB-> (/AI -> /D)

SB + /AI -> /D

Conclusion is not able to determine (/D).

Premises:

SB +/AI

/SC

CC->AI

contrapositive: /AI -> /CC

Connecting Premises:

We know that if there are sentient beings that are not as intelligent as humans, then they are not capable of communicating (/AI -> /CC).

From the initial premise, we know /AI which means /CC.

Filling Gap Between Premises and Conclusion

So we know:

/CC and /SC

and our conclusion is /D

so /CC + /SC -> /D or D-> CC or SC

Breaking doing AC - D

/CC-> (D->SC)

/CC-> (/SC-> /D)

/CC + /SC -> /D

For LR here are some things that have helped me get down to -0 to -2:

1) I had to better manage my timing within a section- I try to do first 15 questions in the 15 minutes or around that (you can try practicing with drills to hone that), which leaves ~20 minutes for the last 10 questions, which tend to be harder. This has allowed me to have time to do those last few questions, whereas before, I would sometimes run out of time at the end of a section and have to guess or not thoroughly spend time with a question I would've gotten right if I had that extra minute.

2) I think something else for LR I have done is decrease my volume and spend more time on review. For every question you miss, especially in a PT, I would recommend really breaking down why you got it wrong and why you fell for a trap answer, even if they are "silly" mistakes. Over time, spending more time thoroughly reviewing my mistakes has also allowed me to see trends in the types of questions I miss and then allow me to hone my drills to improve in those areas.

Hope this is helpful!!

"Neutrinos, which come in three types, are by far the most numerous kind of particle in the universe"

Let's say Universe particles are:

Neutrinos 200

Particle A 100

Particle B 50

Particle C 50

Particle D 25

A) Neutrinos= 200/425

Non-neutrinos = 225/425

A is false

---

E is easy to support because "may" and in fact the cosmologists say "provides the gravitational force necessary to make the huge structures cohere."

1st paragraph definition:

To account for this discrepancy, cosmologists hypothesize that something else, which they call "dark matter," provides the gravitational force necessary to make the huge structures cohere.

2nd paragraph definition:

Without mass, matter cannot exert gravitational force; without such force, it cannot induce other matter to cohere.

AC's

A No does not make sense - "without such force, it cannot induce other matter to exert gravitational force"

B Yes

without such force, it cannot induce other matter to form galactic structures

this matches the 1st paragraph definition of cohere as well, "necessary to make the huge structures cohere."

C No

oscillate is p3

D No

not discussed in passage

E No

not discussed in passage

Tricky question because it doesn't feel like any AC's match perfectly

From text, cosmologists' approach: "Nevertheless, that is enough to alter our picture of the universe even if it does not account for all of dark matter. In fact, some cosmologists claim that this new evidence offers the best theoretical solution yet to the dark matter problem."

i.e. even if not a perfect picture, still enough to make a difference in our understanding

Going through AC's

A - No - the family member does not give any information that would alter the child's knowledge of chess.

This AC would be better if it said a child seeking information about how to play chess consults a family member and is given some introductory steps that allow the child to build a foundation of knowledge and inquiry.

B - No - it's not about unable to achieve one thing and thereby achieving another.

This AC would be better if it said A child seeking to earn money by delivering papers is unable to earn enough money for a bicycle but decides to put forward their first paycheck to make a step toward eventually getting a bicycle

C - No it's not about wanting one thing and getting another

This AC would be better if it said a child hoping to get a dog for his birthday is initially disappointed when his parents bring home a cat but views this as an encouragement of their parents being willing to get a pet and a stepping stone to getting a dog down the line

D - Yes, best of the AC's

A child seeking money to attend a movie is given some of the money by one of his siblings and so decides to go to each of his other siblings to ask for additional money.

Child gets something (partial) just like the cosmologists claim the new evidence is (partial) information that can help offer a solution to the dark matter problem

E - No it's not about fulfilling one condition in order to get what you desire

A better AC would be A child enjoys playing sports with the neighborhood children but her parents only allow her to play for 20 minutes instead of an hour because she has to eat dinner