I think the issue with AC (B) is that we don't know if Grey got the idea from Jordan or someone else. So what if they have completely different ideas, Grey could have plagarized from Jordan still, OR as AC (A) states, they both could have gotten it independantly from another person.

This is similar to the third factor causing A and B to happen instead of A caused B.

This question is a toughie!

I think the way to understand this is when people in walking shoes and people in toning shoes walk for the same distance or amount of time, the walking shoes people get the same amount of exercise or MORE exercise than the toning shoes people.

However, to get this right, you have to realize that many people is a different subset than the one above. Many people CHOOSE to walk more in the toning shoes and as a result they strengthen/develop their leg muscles more. If the other group (walking shoes) are not walking now, and the toning shoes people continue walking then it makes complete sense that their muscles are strengthened.

I thought this was really tricky and the answer is super subtle!

I FINALLY figured out this question, after putting it aside and not looking at any explanations, or anything.

I have a new way of approaching SA questions, I just simply tell myself I am trying to make this argument valid.

OK so argument:

Currently the interest rates that banks pay to borrow are higher than the interest rates that they can receive for loans to large, financially strong companies.

Banks will not currently lend to companies that are not financially strong, and total lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies is less than it was five years ago.

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

So total bank lending to companies is less than it was five years ago.

Answer choice A: Banks will not lend money at interest rates that are lower than the interest rates they pay to borrow.

This argument makes the assumption that banks are NOT going to provide loans to financially strong companies. We know of only two options, option 1: financially strong companies and option 2: small and medium sized companies.

The argument makes the assumption that banks are ONLY going to provide loans to small and medium sized companies. How do we know this? Well we have the two options, and then the quality that is associated with the small and medium sized companies [total lending is less than it was five years ago) is included in the conclusion.

So, the only thing we can do is take out the other group [financially strong companies] which is in the first premise: Answer Choice A does that: banks will not lend money at interest rates that are lower than the interest rates they pay to borrow. We know from the first premise that the interest rates banks pay to borrow are higher than what they can receive for loans from the financially strong companies. So by eliminating this group from consideration from the banks point of view, we know that the only option is the small and mid sized companies!

I got stuck between C and D in timed, and ultimately chose D. In BR I saw the connection right away. Sometimes, I think we make the right inference but then we overthink and forget our original inference. Today, I saw it right away!

Translation

Most of the mines M operates in V have never violated environmental regulations. Every gold mine M operates in the world has at 1 point violated environmental regulations.

Analysis

Inference: Most of the mines in V are not gold mines.

(A) Maybe -- but I don't get this inference from the statements.

(B) I don't know anything about the total # of mines.

(C) Cool story -- but it could be most (gold mines) are in Velyena but even more mines in Velyena are NOT gold mines.

(D) Yes! Even if C is true, D has to be true. We know most have never violated environmental regulations and most gold mines have violated environmental regulations. Therefore, most mines in Velyena are NOT gold mines.

(E) No idea about total mines.

Paragraph 1:

Contextual background information: Lamarck’ theory. Phenomenon/purported hypothesis introduced. My prediction is that this hypothesis is something we are going to investigate whether it is true or not.

Paragraph 2:

Details on the immune system and Steele’s answer to the relevant questions regarding the immune system. (Further explicating the hypothesis).

Paragraph 3:

Further explication of hypothesis, potential question to the hypothesis and hypothesizer’s response to the question.

Paragraph 4:

Author’s opinion and further examination of the nature/quality/degree of the evidence.

Main Point: Lamark’s hypothesis is attempted to be justified through Steele’s hypothesis.

Tone: Author is descriptive/objective throughout and then towards the end we get some skepticism

Structure: Background Information/Context – scholars purported hypothesis – relevant questions and answer – scholar’s explanation – and nature of evidence/support

I got 1 and 5 wrong in BR :(

1) I was between B and E!

I didn't like B because of "most lasting effect" I thought we don't know if that is true or not, and with E, I didn't like how the emphasis was on the funders of the FTP Negro Units theater program and matched it up with the claims in the last paragraph whereas I thought we were looking for something about the impact the Negro Units had on the African American theater. With (C) I didn't like "are now being recognized", I didn't see the "until recently studied legacies of the program on lines 8-10 and was emphasizing the end of the first paragraph.

Lesson learned: when you think you have the main point, read a little above to where the content is introduced, for example, I should have looked to see where "Negro Units" was first mentioned to clue me into where I should look for potential details.

5) In timed I got rid of A--C and was stuck between D and E. In BR, I was down to AC (D) but I wasn't crazy about it because I don't know if it was written by African Americans or endorsed by scholars. I ended up picking A in BR. JY is right though, it is wrong because of the word center, it was not one place they were referring to, they clearly state in the passage 28 states, "eighteen of these units in cities spread throughout the United States." The correct AC is C because it is dicussing "broad based dramatic-arts enterprise." That includes theater houses that are spread across the U.S.

Paragraph 1: Introduction to the Phenomenon and main point: FTP/Black Negros and the significance of the event movement (close to truly black theater).

Paragraph 2: Further contextual information about the movement/event: the Harlem Renaissance and their impact on the event with the ongoing debates and the implications of that -- different arguments led to diverse theatre focuses.

Paragraph 3: Reflection of the significance of the FTP/Black Negro theatre impact

Main Point:

FTP/Black Negros and its significance/impact

Tone:

Objective, supportive of FTP/Black Negro theatre (but really subtle tone)

Structure:

Phenomenon/Historical moment -- detailed context -- impact/significance

Informative/Descriptive passage

I got this one wrong. I was down to B and C.

Translation:

A local marsh needs to be cleansed before the office can be built. Marshes are necessary and no assessment has been assigned to determine how the marsh will affect the water. The city should therefore block the marsh without an assessment.

Analysis:

Before we implement something, we need to assess it. We haven't assessed it to see effects. Therefore, we should not implement the thing without the assessment.

(A) This does not show a restriction that determines the outcome and restriction not being carried out.

(B) States problem, doesn't fulfill requirement, and concludes, so don't do the thing. It's a match.

(C) It never makes the report dependent on the uninterrupted testing. In other words, it does not say that we cannot release the report (because we will not know the effects/consequences) unless we have uninterrupted testing.

(D) Doesn't match -- it just points out negatives and say we should do this thing instead of restriction, not heeded, so don't do this thing.

(E) Different argument form -- goes from disadvantages to doing it, to disadvantage superseding them if we don't do the thing. No, just, no.

Two questions I found tricky are 15 and 22:

15:

(A): JY's argument for AC A is that at most it would support paragraphs 2 &3. I didn't pick A for a few other reasons. I didn't like "mainstream scientists have always assumed," yes we get the fact that increasing returns to scale is something that was later accepted bc it was supported mathematically, however, the reasoning for not accepting the assumption was the difficulty of demonstrating it without mathematical rigor. So my issue was I don't actually know that most scientists actually always assumed this, I thought it could be perfectly consistent with they did not believe in the assumption and did not have enough evidence to support their claim. I know this is going a little outside the box though. I also did not pick this because I was looking for an AC that talked about the increasing returns to scales bit.

(B): I like JY's explanation of this one regarding "functioning" how that word makes it descriptively inaccurate. I was down to this AC and AC E. I ultimately ended up not going with this AC because it didn't go all the way and mention how now we can account for increasing returns.

(C): "even more rigorously"? I need more information about how these recent developments allow this part of the comparison to win. The only thing I know about recent developments is that they now are able to support increasing returns to scale with mathematical rigor.

(D): Cool. But how do I know he was the first economist to do so? There could have been another one that was the first and just isn't mentioned. Also, we barely talk about Adam Smith, we mention him in the first paragraph as part of the background information/context to set the scene so we can introduce the phenomenon.

(E): Yes! I picked this one but was a bit apprehensive because it didn't mention the conflict between the pin factory and the invisible hand, but since none of them did, I went with this one. My only issue with this was the "in many industries" but I think that can be supported with the "underground river" in line 54+. The biggest thing for me was the "increasing returns to scale."

16:

Weaken. I got this wrong timed, and right in BR. We are weakening the argument that increased size leads to more specialized workers which leads to increased output which can go towards a monopoly. I especially liked JY's analogy with the metro system/public transportation how if we had all these different independant companies and not a monopoly we wouldn't necessarily have a consistent train system. In my mind, I thought of roads and the freeway, if all these companies made their own roads, how would we be able to drive on them, there sometimes needs to be a monopoly. And typing this out, it reminds me of an old LR question about how there needs to be agreement on competitiors with fax machines, otherwise how will people be able to send and receive faxes?

Anyhow back to the question. The argument shows that the pin factory leads to efficiency, all we have to do is show an instance where this argument moves forward but the end result is inefficiency or goes against the purpose of participating in this structure.

(A): In timed I chose this one. I found it attractive because I thought well if there is a monopoly in one region then how do I know there is no monopoly in another region? It's not possible. However, it is entirely possible to have a monopoly in one region and another in a different region. The argument still stands.

(B): So their salary is not as high, but they are still functioning in the same system. Nothing tells me that the system is compromised or different from what the argument says it would. Maybe they have found an alternative for essential workers such as a robot or some type of technology and people aren't working as many hours, but the company efficiency is higher than before, so yes this AC is consistent with the argument.

(C): Again I liked JY's commentary about how several companies colluding would still operate as a monopoly. I imagined Google, Apple, and Facebook colluding on technology or advertising issues to keep their profits high. This still is consistent, because they are maximizing their profits and also specializing.

(D): OK great so the size can be different for different companies/sectors. That does nothing to my argument.

(E): I picked this one in BR. This is well supported, if you have specialized workers but that specialization is being offset by other factors which would negatively impact your profits or outcome because instead of expending your time in increased output, you are now expending your time in worker attrition and training costs. The increase you had before is now a cost. So, no, the argument is no longer solid.

Paragraph 1: Phenomenon is purported: problem between the pin factory and the invisible hand.

Paragraph 2: The relationship between the pin factory and the invisible hand.

Paragraph 3: How the two are actually in opposition to each other. Increasing returns to scale vs decreasing returns to scale. Competition vs. monopoly.

Paragraph 4: Why diminishing returns to scale dominated = math is more easily represented

Paragraph 5: How increasing returns to scale was able to be supported = math

MP: There is a conflict between the pin factory and invisible hand, and in order to understand the relationship we need to account for the reality of increasing returns to scale.

Tone: Objective, is supportive of the increasing returns to scale argument. Purely descriptive.

Structure: We get introduced to a phenomenon; details for the phenomenon; conflict between the two factors; and two implications that help account for what happens in practice/reality.

Paragraph 1: Background Information/Context. Low cohesiveness/cohesive group contrast and why having a cohesive group can be good for decision making.

Prediction: I'm not sure where this is going, maybe further expand on cohesive groups?

Paragraph 2: High cohesive groups can devolve into an extreme negative called group think. It lists facets such as self censorship, deference to the group, and desire for conformity as leading to groupthink.

Prediction: I think we will talk about groupthink and why this is so bad/debilitating.

Paragraph 3: Studies of past decisionmaking has led researchers to identify components of groupthink. Different factors where individuals do not think critically or the desire to align with a uniform decision. Identifies how cohesiveness is a necessary condition for groupthink.

MP: Cohesiveness and its impact on decisionmaking. My original MP before watching the video was: cohesiveness can be good but it can also lead to groupthink.

Tone: Author is objective and wants to prevent groupthink from happening.

Structure: Introduce phenomenon (low/cohesiveness) an implication (how high cohesive groups can result in groupthink) and a practical application of groupthink (the analyses of military/international diplomatic decisionmaking processes that led researchers to identify components of groupthink).

ARGH! I was so so SO close to getting this right, I had picked (E) and had three minutes left over at the end of my section and changed it to (E). In BR, I didn't read what AC (A) was saying critically and unfortunately picked (A) again.

Translation:

Studies find human tears have some of the same hormones the human body has when undergoing emotional stress. Tears remove a significant amount of these hormones from the body. Thus, crying causes a reduction of emotional stress.

Analysis:

This is a bad argument. It has two correlations with a common factor and assumes there is a causal relationship with the two extraneous variables:

Tears are correlated with hormones which are correlated with emotional stress.

Hence, tears are correlated with a reduction of hormones.

Thus, crying (tears shedding) cause a reduction in emotional stress.

This assumes because hormones reduce, emotional stress is also reduced, but what if there is some other factor that reduces emotional stress and the reduction of hormones just happens to happen?

(A) Overlooks the possibility that if crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress, this tendency might arise because of something other than the shedding of tears.

This answer choice is assuming the assumption that the argument makes (the causation of crying (tears shedding) cause the reduction of emotional stress, which would rely upon a correlation between the true is in fact true! It assumes the correlation, however, no such correlation has been established or stated!

(E) Takes for granted that because certain substances are present whenever a condition occurs, those substances are a cause of that condition.

Yes! It assumes that hormones are present when there is emotional stress there is a correlative/causation relationship between the two, so a reduction of tears would cause a reduction of emotional stress. However, the only thing that has ever been established is that there is a correlative relationship, there are some of the same hormones associated with emotional stress and tears. We cannot conclude further on the emotional stress without additional premises given.

I got this one wrong, I saw the language of the words following the colon and thought aha argument by analogy! I did the SAME thing in BR! Ugh.

The words following the colon if you look at them and see how it relates to the words of the argument overall it's literally taking the policymakers proposal to the extreme and saying look how ridiculous/preposterous this strategy would be! So it is raising considerations to show the proposal would lead to absurd consequences i.e. be untenable or waste an extraordinary effort/resources.

Lesson Learned: before you jump to conclusions, look at each word in entirety and see how it relates back to the stimulus. Is the function I think the words in question doing, actually doing that task? Check back to ensure it actually IS doing that.

The premise the current acids have decreased and then the conclusion states we can expect an overall decrease in the pollutants. However, answer choice C comes in and says what is the current state of events is no longer going to be the case i.e. in the future we will have an increase of acidic pollutants, hence meaning that the conclusion is no longer following from the conclusion.

Think about it, if we currently have a decrease in acidic pollutants and now we know that next month there will be an increase in acidic pollutants, how can we conclude that we will have an overall/aggregate decrease of (-) acidic effects of acid rain? We can't, because what is the case right now, is not going to be the case in the future.

The way I got rid of B is: OK but family reports depend on family perceptions, so this distinction is irrelevant.

So even if you negate B : the behavior patterns people display when they are with family are not significantly different from those they display otherwise.

This doesn't weaken the argument, study A shows no detection in birth order, study B shows family perceptions on said sibling, therefore, together these studies show us that birth order effects don't have lasting effects on personality but it shows us how the said person is perceived.

To me, the way you can weaken the argument is by showing either study is flawed in some way. This is because the conclusion draws its support from two studies. AC (B) doesn't show a flaw in the study, it's just telling us there is a distinction with a person's displaying certain behavior, maybe said person is polite with the parents, but rambunctious with close friends, that does not tell us anything about birth order effects and their impact on a respective person in a family.

I actually think it is wrong (B) because B is something that will always happen, regardless of whether this policy change happens or not (if we halt the plan, the low income people will still be disproportionately burdened). Whereas in D, the policy changes the low income people being disproportionately burdened changes (if the policy continues, they are disproportionately burdened; if the policy change does not continue, they are no longer being disproportionately burdened).

Hey, so B is wrong because the conclusion never states there is a decline. Instead the conclusion says the magazine will not be the "largest -selling martial arts magazine ten years from now." This is a degree issue, so it is compatible with having decreased sales, the same level of sales as this past year, or increased sales. But in the case of higher sales, it is not the highest selling magazine.

The flaw is that the argument presumes because we are not using one strategy that would support "rise as quickly" which could potentially make it the highest selling magazine, it is the only way to become the highest selling magazine. How do we know there is not another way, maybe the magazine allows for funders to do an advertising campaign that will directly allow for the highest sales in the magazine subset.

A

Paragraph 1: PL has had disastrous effects on native vegetation and some animal communities. There is little research on long term control.

Paragraph 2: There is a need for some form of PL control.

MP: PL needs to be controlled

B

Paragraph 1: Presents arguments for PL control (in a critical tone).

Paragraph 2: Asserts that the concerned scientific arguments are really disguising their attempt to control nature for human desires by purporting to liberate nature from PL. Disputes data from A and claims only the canvasback is endangered from PL. The real issue is $ lost in hunting, trapping, and recreation revenues because of a potential reduction/control in PL.

MP: PL does not need to be controlled and opponents are exaggerating data.

4:

A) The author never stipulates when an injunction should be issued, only that injunctions are not effective in preventing subconscious trade secrets from being shared with a competitior.

B) I didn't pick this in BR because although the author briefly mentions that the two are irreconcilable in the first paragraph, I thought his whole point was that injunctions are not serving a part of their purpose i.e. preventing trade secrets from being shared with competitors (on the basis that it is hard to detect subconscious spread of trade secrets or intangible vs tangible evidence). Anyhow, there is support for this in the first paragraph and even though the author does not detail about the employees right to seek gainful employment and make use of their expertise, the support is there, so this answer is correct.

C) This is wrong because of "should not be allowed" the author never makes a judgement or claim as to what employees should do, he only discusses the complications that can arise from injunctions.

D) We don't know that the different ways in which information can be transferred increases the need for injunctions, all we know is that injunctions don't work in all cases i.e. when the evidence is intangible or subconscious. We also know that injunctions is the way the courts use to address the issue of trade secrets, but it is not entirely effective.

E) There is absolutely no support for this. We only know that former employers are concerned about their trade secrets being spread.

My breakdown:

Paragraph 1: Problem that occurs when an employee leaves its company to work for a competitor and its implications.

Paragraph 2: Additional problems for the employee.

Paragraph 3: Problems with court injunctions: they don't account for subconscious behavior or differentiate between trade secrets and tech skills independently developed, and injunctions don't fulfill their purpose except when it's tangible evidence or passage of documents.

MP: Problems companies/former employees face when an employee leaves to work for a competitor.

Tone: Negative. The author reports the facts but clearly shows his/her stance on the problem with this issue and injunctions.

Structure: Introduces problem and its implications; further implication for two groups (employee and former company); and why purported solution is not complete.

My breakdown:

Paragraph 1: There is an international effort to address environmental problems stemming from agricultural overproduction. This will be difficult because nutrients have been depleted, land has been heavily fertilized which resulted in problem weeds like thistles. Removing and replacing topsoil is a quick fix but will not help with such a large landscape such as Europe. The Netherlands is investigating a process accelerating nature reestablishing plant diversity on previous farm land.

Paragraph 2: Details study and through study we discover thistles are forced out when the broadest species were sown and thistles disappeared from grass mats in plots sown with fewer seed varieties. On control plots that were untouched, thistles became dominant.

Paragraph 3: Through additional experiments, it has been hypothesized that fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms while beneficial fungi are lacking. From these events, implications indicate restoring a natural balance of microorganisms in the soil - and from this a solution is possible if beneficial microorganisms are sown in the soil in concert with a wide variety of native plant seeds.

MP: Attempt to restore a natural balance of flora/deal with environmental problems by investigating a study and its implications, researchers have put together a solution.

Structure: There is an attempt of addressing a problem, the effects of the problem are enumerated, a potential solution is described and provides an accompanying problem, another solution is provided with a study mentioned. The study is detailed, implications of the study, and a final solution is stated.

Tone: The author is clearly in support of the study and the researchers solution.

My breakdown:

Paragraph 1: In the 1980s women who were Latin American began publishing literature. At the end of the decade, the autobiography was seen in US Latina writing in three autobiographical writings.

Paragraph 2: The collections are innovative for a variety of reasons 1) addresses traditional linguistic boundaries by using a mix of English and Spanish, 2) notes the politics of mixed identities, 3) mix structures of works without preference to one over the other.

Paragraph 3: Examples of the three works detailing the reasons in the previous paragraph.

Paragraph 4: Instead of having their personal histories conform to existing structures, these writers have revolutionized the autobiography to allow their experiences to be accounted for.

MP: In US Latina American literature, writers have reinvented the genre in their approach to writing, content, and the form it takes in the autobiography.

Structure: A phenomenon is introduced, the phenomenon is explored through detailed examples, and the author reasserts the significance of the phenomenon.

Tone: The author is in favor of the phenomenon/US Latina women's approach to writing the autobiography.

My breakdown:

Paragraph 1: CM is a formerly abundant now rare tree species in Mauritius (also home to the extinct dodo bird). ST's hypothesis that the population decrease of M is linked to the dodo extinction is based on limited evidence.

Paragraph 2: The temporal coincidence led to a causality between the two factors. The reduction in CM because the dodo's consumption of CM fruit allowed the seeds to spring free and germinate. However, with the disappearance of the dodo the seeds became trapped and were unable to germinate.

Paragraph 3: Because there was no direct proof available ST found support in additional findings based on other bird studies and tests done on turkeys.

Paragraph 4: Even though some scientists find ST's reasoning possible, ST's ideas have been challenged by leading experts in the field. WS has identified younger trees indicating CM's germination continued post dodo. Also AS shows while a small amount germinate, it is enough to keep CM from extinction. The population decrease could be due to other factors.

MP: ST's hypothesis about the decrease of CM being linked to the dodo extinction is not likely.

Tone: The author reports the theory as an objective reporter but in the last paragraph he comes strongly in support of the detractors.

Structure: A hypothesis for a phenomenon is introduced, explained in further details, its shortcomings are noted, its response to limited circumstances, and the hypothesis is ultimately challenged.

My breakdown:

A:

Paragraph 1: The patent office is only to award patents for "nonobvious" inventions. A consideration appears to be obvious but a court recently ruled tech company infringed on patents dealing with this consideration.

Paragraph 2: In an ideal world patents would be so narrow that companies could invent around patents but courts are making it impossible to invent around patents.

Paragraph 3: Large tech companies have responded to this practice by holding huge amounts of patents and using them as leverage against potential lawsuits. Those that don't engage in this practice end up at a severe disadvantage.

Paragraph 4: Software patents are open to abuse because software consists of modular components and its impossible to develop software without infringing patents-in the case they could it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

MP: Because of the way the courts operate with patents, the current system is inadequate and open for abuse.

B:

Paragraph 1: Patents thwart innovation in software development and are not consistent with open source/free software. The company would like to join those in the community and proprietary vendors who are against software patents.

Paragraph 2: We have to adapt to circumstances and some companies gather a plethora of patents. (Similar/same issues as Passage A, Paragraph 4).

Paragraph 3: One defense against such practices is to create a portfolio of software patents for protection. Even though the company is against patents, it will also adopt this policy because of the current situation.

MP: Software patents are unfair but to stay relevant and cautious it is important to gather a portfolio of software patents.

Tone: The authors are pretty much in agreement. Passage B is direct support for Passage A.

11: JY's prephrase says "tells us about a movement in photography."

A) I picked this one, I was down to this and B and I picked this because of the words aesthetic value, but while the first artist justification for the older method is based on aesthetics, the other artist's focus is on the use for his interest of fantasy and nostalgia which would be more of a usefulness rather than aesthetic claim.

B) We are given different techniques of photography but we don't know how the methods are used.

C) My issue for this answer choice was the word surprising, even though the practice was out of the norm for photography today I didn't think it was portrayed as something surprising. I guess the compare/contrast between the modern uses of photography vs this movement in the third paragraph would be the justification for the word surprising.

D) We have no idea if these photographers have received acclaim for this use or not.

E) Yes two contemporary photographers are mentioned, but they are both used to illustrate support for the conclusion of this new development among a subset of artists. Also, other approaches are mentioned in the second paragraph so we cannot limit to the two artists.

14: The justification for this answer is in lines 38-40 where "we are able to project our sentiments and associations on the respective art."

A) This is correct because it accounts for why E doesn't correct the blemishes in the older art, either way it would be exposed to the viewer.

B) I eliminated this because of the word "independent" E's whole argument is that the techniques he uses bring forth a sense of nostalgia so there is no way the feelings of an artwork would be independent of the techniques.

C) This is wrong for two reasons: 1) most people, we only know about the two artists and then the overall trend within this subset, for the subset itself we do not know what is true of MOST artists. Also this answer choice is talking about the viewer we don't know about general viewers experiences from the passage; 2) "record their subjects accurately" if anything this goes against what E is saying because he is embellishing the artwork to make it appear part of the antique art set.

D) This would weaken his argument because E's whole focus is on nostalgia of the artwork, people not seeing much artistic value in his subset would not support that.

E) This is talking about modern photography which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on E, since E is part of the trend moving towards older techniques.