This was my logic

Jordan assumes there are only 2 methods. Either a business makes efforts to help the environment and lose money or they harm the environment. Jordan offers options A and B

Terry says there’s a 3rd alternative where no one loses money if everyone works together. Terry offers option C

AC A is right because it shows that there’s a 3rd alternative where the garden party can happen and the grass can be watered. Jordan is saying A and B, Terry is saying C

AC C is wrong because it’s saying there’s a 3rd alternative where no action is being taken, but Terry explicitly believes that this alternative must be an action, not an inaction. It’s kind of like parallel reasoning. In AC C, Jordan is saying A and B can happen, but Terry is saying /A and /B yields a new result.

E is a very weak AC that doesn't say anything new whereas C shows that there are only 2 entities that are doing the research and thus gov't do it more

The author is concluding that larger size helps lake sticklebacks against predators more than armor.

We're looking to weaken that, so we want an answer that shows their conclusion is wrong. Probably something along the lines of how armor is actually > than size or that size is used for something other than to defend against predators

B: Explains an alternative to why sticklebacks are large. They need to be big to survive winter, not to survive against predators so the author's conclusion is wrong

C: A few reasons why it's wrong and you can pick the one that resonates with you best

• We can't conclude that the difference in predators means that larger size makes them better equipped to handle insects. Anything more is speculation. Answer is neutral

• This explanation, at best, shows why armor is unnecessary but not why a large size is necessary/better against the predators. Answer is neutral

• Bigger size would actually mean that insects are going to have a bigger time preying on them, so this would strengthen if you interpret it like this

If you have time then diagram. If not then these are tricks I use

• Similar language in the premise and conclusion. If the conclusion says some, the parallel answer should have the word some or equivalent of some. I can cross off anything that says none, all, most

• Nots. If the premise or conclusion has the phrase “not x” then the parallel answer must always have a negation of some sort

• Common trap answers share the same topics. If the stimulus is about baking and there’s an answer choice about baking, it’s probably wrong

• Facts vs values. If the stimulus says anything about beliefs or should/should not, the parallel answer will too

C was one of the first ones I crossed out because the stimulus says that there's an antitheft device with a homing beacon and C makes these assumptions which aren't given

• Antitheft device and a homing beacon were developed seperately

• They were also implemented one before the other

It also didn't make sense to me how a few arrests could make theft rates drop dramatically. Like disproportionately so

A is wrong because "group's interests should be directly proportional to the number of voters in that group." But children aren't voters and thus aren't included in that group and that's not what the author is argument

Big words are traps. Just understand the concept like there's a disease and it does x, y, z, and the author thinks x, y, and z about it

I interpreted C as their appliances are already energy efficient so using electricity meters (which doesn't change the energy efficiency, it just makes tenants pay) wouldn't make a difference. Basically, landlords are adding electricity meters on top of their already efficient appliances.

Like LED lights are so good already. Even if you cut your lights off by 5 hours in a month, your bill won't change. In fact, maybe the act of turning lights on/off uses more energy than letting them run nonstop

So just because there are meters doesn't GUARANTEE that energy will be conserved

There's a reason they didn't refer to the entire sentence. Half of the sentence is support and the other is the sub conclusion.

Gonna be real, that sentence made no fucking sense to me and even after BR that makes no sense and you know what? We roll with it and work with what little we have

"Intentionally commodified" - so "intentionally" is an interesting word here because it means it has to be done with intent, not as a byproduct or indirect effect.

A: Tempting, but wrong for a few reasons:

• Passage B doesn't talk about trading real ITEMS for virtual items. It mentions trading real money briefly, but money =/= items

• Passage B exclusively talks about in game (or in world) trading and currency

B: Avatars? Does that mean account trading? Or trading a virtual item? Or character? I dunno. It's too vague and niche and whether avatars can be traded or not doesn't explain if it's INTENTIONALLY commodified.

C: Unrelated. This is a passage A reference anyways.

D: Stated in the very first paragraph of B. Players who own IP rights are also encouraged real world trade in virtual games (double negative of paragraph 1). IP are also "encouraged" so that coincides with our concept of "intentional"

• A good way to visualize this is Roblox lmao. When you create a new item, you're given IP rights to it and you can sell this "item" or "right" to other players. You get currency which you can then cash out for real money or not. Regardless, Roblox actively encourages this by giving you IP rights

E: We don't care about cross-trading. We care about whether items and currency obtained within a singular game should be taxable. In this case, the author wouldn't have an opinion about this because it's not mentioned at all

Conclusion introduces responsibility as a new topic so we should anticipate the AC to have responsibility. Only A, B, and D reflect this, but I'll go over each.

A: Correct. Shows that the CondR is linked to responsibility and when negated, it destroys the argument

B: "Unforeseen" is not something applicable to this argument. We don't know if its unforeseen or not. Also the negated version of "government is responsible for none of the unforeseen" falls under the same issue

C: Doesn't relate to conclusion & negated version of "demand for gas CAN increase without causing g. prices to increase" doesn't destroy argument

D: "Excessively" is not something that's known. Same issue as B

E: A lot of reasons why it's wrong.

1. Is this government in the stimulus pursuing policies that don't increase demand for fuel? Dunno

2. AC shows the relationship between demand for fuel and gas prices, which doesn't establish the conclusion's concept of responsibility

D is wrong for any of the given reasons:

1. We care only about high blood pressure conditions, not conditions as a whole

2. Stimulus talks about things caused by stress, not things treatable through stress reduction

C and B swap the logic. Stimulus says if you can praise / dismiss then you understand art and if you DONT understand art then you CAN NOT pass judgement

A is wrong because of the word "interest." Whether they have in interest in something in independent of the fact of whether they should/shouldn't do something

Kind of proud I got this one right

Stimulus: There's generators that convert heat into electricity. Making steel produces a lot of excess heat. If they were able to put that heat into the generator, they'd save a lot on their electric bills and therefore save money.

A: Wrong because we don't care about other means of using heat. Just because another method is more efficient doesn't mean this one isn't effective.

B: Wrong because we don't care if it's possible or not under current technology. Stimulus says "if steel-manufacturing plants could feed..." Alternatively, the negated version of this means it's impossible now but not impossible in the future.

C: Negated means that installing them costs more than the amount saved so in the long run they'd still lose money. Therefore, this is necessary

D: Wrong because PRIMARY source of energy in the PROCESS. 2 reasons it's wrong. (1) It doesn't HAVE to be the PRIMARY reason and (2) steel-manufacturing process doesn't HAVE to use electricity (maybe it's manpowered or nuclear powered idk)

E: "Only if" yeah get outta here.

Lots of big words in the stimulus, but it's not that complex. Make your life simple

Professor believes that a large meteorite was the reason for mass extinction. However, the crystalized rocks show normal magnetic polarity rather than reverse polarity presenting during the mass extinction era.

A) Correct. Weakens the argument and is thus not necessary because author (not the professor!) argues that mass extinction was not caused by the meteor. Negate this and it strengthens the argument.

B) Required because it means the magnetic polarity observed is correct

C) Required because it eliminates alternative reasons (something else made the rocks melt after impact)

D) Required because it eliminates alternative reasons (something else made the rocks melt, same as C)

E) Required because it eliminates an alternative theory that the meteor crashed and reformed before mass extinction happened or even the meteor crashing had nothing to do with extinction

I’m going to assume this is a N.A. question

Stimulus says:

1. Historic figures that are most engaging > rarely morally virtuous

2. HF > brave and confident

3. People we want to live as > characteristics we admire

4. CONCLUSION: Moral virtue is not something we value most

If B were true, it doesn’t trigger anything. So what if they’re either brave and confident but not morally virtuous? The phrase “more difficult” is also a red flag becuase more difficult is in that grey area that neither guarantees nor discounts the relationship between the two. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it isn’t possible

AC A creates a link between engaging HF > people we want to live as. If you negate it, the argument also falls apart

Sent you a message

It'd be easier to know if you could reference the pt/question you're talking about.

I assume that the sample was not representative of the whole. Usually, in flaw questions they explicitly say the sample was diverse/representative/random and if they don't, it means there's no reason to believe the sample is representative.

In your example with NYC, it's incorrect if you're drawing a conclusion about a wider group of people (all of America) from just NYC people because no singular city is representative of a whole country.

I think it's coded as you're getting casual questions AND weaken questions, not casual weaken questions

Yesn't. If the stimulus contains a value statement in the premise or conclusion (background doesn't matter), the answer should have a value statement

It also works on parallel structure

Sufficient assumptions may not require value statements because the gap in logic can be between 2 non value statements.

Hey we're pretty much in the same boat. I'm scoring around 160s consistently, had a 170+ outlier a few weeks ago, and am trying to break to 170. Everything you said is something I agree with wholly. I'd love to have consistent partner and have been struggling to find one. I sent you a DM

Move your testing date. You're going to pull your hair out trying to get 157 within 2 weeks