I could be missing the mark here with Q24, so any feedback is appreciated.
But I’ve just realized that the correct AC for this type of question (Author view/inference) doesn’t necessarily have to be something the author would ‘most likely/probably agree with’. The correct AC just has to be something the author ‘would most probably agree with’ if she were obligated to choose one over the other 4 statements. So there is still always the possibility that the author could have her own issues with the correct AC’s wording, but that when pressed would still pick that ac because it is the least divergent from her views.
A--iii, highly unattractive correct ac. Why? Because the premise conclusion structure of the argument is written in a concealing way. It's somewhat hard to remember to identify and actually identify the conclusion, and the premise is a joint condition sort of thing also written in an ambiguous way. But here's the argument:
C:None of the plays will be performed several centuries from now
P: If there's a play that is performed regularly from now to several centuries from now---->that play must examine humans skillfully.
What makes this ac so subtle is that the argument changes its terminology a bit: they equate on some level 'a play that's popular several centuries from now' with 'plays that continue to be played regularly several centuries from now'.
Another way to look at it is this: The conclusion is stated. Why should we believe it? Here is the reason. Ok, why should we that no play will be popular centuries from now based off of the fact that the only plays that are performed regularly centuries from now all have a characteristic in common? Why are these premises relevant to the conclusion? What bridges the gap, because i'm not getting it idiot? Because: (na) if a play is gonna be popular centuries from now, it must be played regularly from now until centuries from now.
B--i, high critical acclaim is background, not a point at issue in the argument.
C--i, highly attractive trap ac, seems so correct and in the real word it could be argued that it is, but it's incorrect because it technically requires an additional assumption: that the only way to know enough about a play to criticize it is by reading or seeing the play (what about blind people!!!).
--Better reason for eliminating C: JY's reason: we don't give a fuck about the drama critic. Anything about her has absolutely nothing to do with the argument on a necessary level. It is by definition against the task at hand to consider anything about the drama critic? Why? Because nothing about the drama critic--none of their actions whatsoever--was mentioned at all in relation to the argument. So it's by definition extraneous to the argument and thus unnecessary.
D--i, (ehh kinda explanation but don’t feel like changing it) critical acclaim is Background. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, the sufficient condition formulated as it is cannot be correct no matter where it leads to. Why? It's opposite is a necessary condition in the argument; it's never used as a sufficient condition, and to use it as such is way too strong for it to be necessary. We are essentially making a bicondtional statement out of a conditional relationship that was only laid out for one way. Thus, We don't have enough info to conclude that it's necessary, so it's wrong. It's somewhat tempting in that because we are negating it, something does trigger, that it won't be performed centuries from now, but we can't really expect something so easy from the testmakers. But i guess maybe idk.
E--i, same as D, but actually makes it into a bicondtional that isn't there and isn't implied in any way.
How to improve: you have to realize on the 1st round that this is an question you have to dedicate a Br's level of time into analyzing, without time pressure, to get correct. And that you are not allowed to pick an ac 1st round.
—ALSO: Be sensitive to interchanging of SUBJeCtS and treating them as if they are the same thing.
Lately I’ve been trying to predict the rough scope/main idea of each paragraph and I’ve been having a super hard time. I know that it’s because I haven’t done it enough, and that only practice and time can bridge the gap. That being said, I was wondering how many of you actually predict the main idea/scope of each paragraph (besides the intro of course). And if some of you don’t do it, have you had much success without it?
Bump
'Nearly all', or like 95-99% (without necessarily ruling out 100%...I think)
For Q27, in addition to the lines Jy references in the video, we can also use lines 6-10 to support AC A by inferring that: sometimes strawberry plants support cyclamen mites during the 1st year without enduring significant damage, given that:
1.) C-mites infesting plants is interchangeable with plants supporting C-mites
2.) C-mites typically establish themselves in strawberry plants shortly after planting (ie during the 1st year), yet don’t reach damaging levels until the 2nd year.