People have said that if authors INTEND TO GIVE PLEASURE ---> Not impart truth

Conclusion: This is false a.k.a if authors INTEND TO GIVE PLEASURE ---> Can impart truth

What is the basis for the author's argument:

If it were true that (authors INTEND TO GIVE PLEASURE ---> Cannot impart truth) then I can determine if a book is true just by looking at its popularity.

If it were very popular ---> GAVE PLEASURE ---> Not impart truth

The problem is this author bases their argument on whether "a book gave pleasure" when the people's argument being discussed is when the author "intends to give pleasure."

Therefore, the author of this argument assumes that if a book gives you pleasure then the author must have intended to.

A - The stimulus does not say this, so it could be true

B - Well, this does not go against the passage

C - I believe this is what the stimulus alludes to; that's why they appoint managers

D - Correct! Stimulus mentioned that the government CAN manage it by appointing management

E - Financially sound???

B is just not it because all we know is about when there is widespread use of the Internet, not when "new technologies emerge." Also, this AC discusses "formulating new ethical guidelines" and that does not equal education.

That newspapers do not adequately cover all sides of every one of their stories does not mean the important sides are not covered.

So if all newspapers do not cover 55% of all sides, the remaining percentage could have covered the important sides, and this argument overlooks that by confusing the inability to cover all sides of every story with the inability to cover all sides of any important story.

AC B is wrong because the stimulus does not say that any two newspapers give you the complete sides. So even if newspapers A and B do not give you the important sides of the story, B and C can and that's okay.

M (province of Velyena) ---> never violated environmental regulations

M (gold mines) ---> has at some time or another violated environmental regulations

Immediately identified that most of the mines that Moradco operates in the province of Velyena are not gold mines since they have never violated environmental regulations.

AC A and E were the only contenders. B-D were all focused on an entirely different subject (what politicians should do), which is not the point of the stimulus. We were given an opinion, not an argument for what should or should not be done.

AC E is wrong because it is also irrelevant. People who would be hurt, what does that do with the voting choices of individuals???

HATED THIS ONE!

Stimulus:

(1) The longer an animal can stay submerged during a dive, the greater the depth the animal can reach.

(2) Dolphins can dive to greater depths than northern fur seals.

(3) Elephant seals can stay submerged longer than Weddell seals.

Before you even move ahead you can make the following inferences:

(1) Dolphins stay submerged longer than northern fur seals

(2) Elephant seals can dive to greater depths than Weddell seals.

A little diagram gives us:

NORTHERN FUR SEALS

|

|

|

DOLPHIN SEALS (Submerged longer and dives deeper)

and

WENDELL SEALS

|

|

|

ELEPHANT SEALS (Submerged longer and dives deeper)

AC D: RIGHT answer because it is the only one that straight-up contradicts our stimulus. This AC states that "Northern fur seals can stay submerged longer than elephant seals can, but Weddell seals can dive to greater depths than dolphins can."

If this were true, then Northern fur seals would be able to dive deeper than elephant seals can and Weddell seals can dive to greater depths than dolphins can.

If I mapped this out I get something like:

ELEPHANT SEALS

|

|

|

NORTHERN FUR SEALS

and

DOLPHIN SEALS

|

|

|

WENDELL SEALS

This contradicts our stimulus because elephant seals should be able to dive deeper than wendell seals.

AC A: We do not know this; Hell, maybe it is readily available, we cannot tell.

AC B: We do not know WHY anyone does anything according to the stimulus

AC C: We do not know if they have a genetic predisposition and if you have a genetic predisposition, why would that disappear immediately after you move??

AC D: This is comparing individuals and we do not know that. I chose this and I totally missed the "than other people" part which is unsupported by the stimulus.

AC E: POE leads to this: It's not a MBT question; it's a MSS, and E is MSS from the available options. It is possible because of the correlation between the incidence of HBP amongst those who move to the mainland and drink several cups of flavonoid-rich cocoa.

Takeaway: MSS questions have a little more leeway than MBT questions.

Babblers live in large cooperative groups and each member attempts to defend the group by sounding a loud barklike call when it spots a predator. They are well camouflaged and can escape without notice by predators, but they still make these shrill barks. Why???

AC A: You fly faster, so why do you keep barking?

AC B: If they are intimidated, and you bark loudly then that makes the predators intimidated. So, even after they have taken cover they still bark so their predators know not to come near either way.

AC C: Okay?? We have been told that these predators we are discussing become aware of the presence of babblers only because of their shrill barks, so this does nothing.

AC D: If predators have weak hearing, and you can even escape with your camouflage, then why are you barking???

AC E: So are we assuming that babblers are trying to help or save the animals that live near?

WOW! This is an insane question and I am truly so mad I missed a main conclusion.

I thought the main conclusion was that "because they too often use advertised price cuts to promote their wares, they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty." and I went with AC D.

AC C is actually the conclusion because the author adds "Promotions of this sort might make bargain-minded consumers feel lucky, but they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty." as evidence for why they think it's too often used.

D deserves more attention on why it is wrong!

AC D is wrong because the stimulus does not mention that absorption of iron is the issue that brings about the likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease. For you to choose it would require assuming that.

AC A is right because it rightfully knocks out an alternate explanation that could arise as a possible objection. The stimulus infers cause from correlation and this AC strengthens by knocking out the possibility that Y is in fact what causes X.

I got this right, but AC E is an extremely terrible answer even if it's the best option!

Even if it affects the development of only one nation (within the writer’s own national tradition), it can still be rightly thought of as world literature if it is used as a negative case of a decadent tendency that must be consciously avoided within external national traditions.

Yes, it's not a MBT question, but E is terrible

Cost is very high, but even if it is unpopular, there is little risk that we will not recover the costs because much of the money is being spent to develop innovative special-effects technology that could be used in future films.

AC A: Okay, then this is great for them!

AC B: This strengthens also

AC C: Okay, that's great but the stimulus introduces a way to recoup the costs so I am unbothered by this

AC D: This tells us that many innovative special effects technologies were abandoned after the films for which they were developed proved to be unpopular and this is telling you that this poses that risk of being abandoned too and if that happens, then the film director needs to be worried about the production costs not being recovered.

AC E: I hate that I chose this because even if the new special-effects technology would lower the production costs of other films that use it, I truthfully cannot care about this because the costs for THIS film can still be recouped even if it takes several films using the new special-effects technology.

The only contenders were B and E.

B is wrong because both individuals do not discuss the criteria for other disciplines. For all we know, those also have the same rules and need to be changed. So we cannot choose this.

E is correct because you cannot just look at whether or not scientists have Nobel prizes as determinants for their contributions. These prizes do not tell the big picture because some deceased scientists were "not living" to be eligible and for some, they were more than 3 and did not meet the criteria.

The explanation for E makes so much sense! It all boils down to your understanding of the conclusion. The author does not say that as people grow older, they become more connected to political systems. It says that with each passing generation, citizens are becoming increasingly disconnected from the political system.

The reason why E looks remotely attractive is if you interpreted the conclusion as the former. Then you would want to take into consideration the possibility that things change as they grow.

The conclusion in actuality means that as generations move from Baby Boomers to Gen X to Genz, people become disconnected (AS A WHOLE), and that's the problem because you are comparing different stages of different generations when you do not know what those over 65 did when they were younger.

AC A: NO! This answer is way too much! What if the residents change their minds and no longer oppose any significant construction projects near these bodies of water? Then a new natural gas-powered electrical generation station can work.

A C: The three sites available do not work because of the opposing residents, so unless you expand those, no site would be suitable

Caught between answers C & D; Chose C unfortunately!

AC C: WRONG because even if the box office success depends on what viewers find funny, frightening, or moving when film historians analyze those numbers/success outcomes, do they REVEAL what viewers find funny, frightening, or moving? I believe another issue with C is that even if film historians' success depends on these things, what about the other aspects of these numbers??? Yes, success depends on XYZ, but what of failures, what do they reveal?? Until we know that, we cannot make any inferences.

For example, whether or not an item sells out depends on what is deemed fashionable at the time, costs, consumer income, demand, and people's opinions on the brand's ethics. If I look at the profit margin afterward, do they reveal each of these things?? Can I look at those numbers and tell you straight up what people's opinion on the brand's ethics was, their income, etc?!!! No! X depends on Y does not mean Y reveals anything!

AC D: I had an issue with the word "views", but it is RIGHT because whether or not viewers find films funny, frightening, or moving, they are views. And the stimulus tells us that film historians believe they do not reveal that!

Human skin gives off several gaseous substances such as carbon dioxide and lactic acid - which attract mosquitos.

When you combine both carbon dioxide and lactic acid, they do not attract mosquitoes as much as a bare human arm will, even in darkness and when a mosquito has no visual cues. (What this is saying is that, even when it is pitch black, the bare human arm still attracts more mosquitoes than these gaseous substances listed - carbon dioxide and lactic acid and the author eliminates the possibility of visual cues by knocking that out).

They then conclude that it has to be some other gaseous substance that attracts them. (You know, since they can still attract even in the absence of carbon dioxide and lactic acid).

WHY WOULD YOU JUMP TO "OTHER GASEOUS SUBSTANCES" WHEN IT COULD BE ANYTHING ELSE ATTRACTING THEM!!!?

AC A: Okay, even if you negate this and say they communicate with one another, that's great!!!! Is it other gaseous substances that's attracting them or something else?

AC B: If they are attracted by body heat, then it's not other gaseous substances! It is body heat that's attracting them.

AC C: Okay??!!!

AC D: Okay???!!

AC E: Okay, the skin gives off some gaseous substances that repel them; Is it other gaseous ATTRACTING them???

AC A - WRONG because it discusses the "Agency's overall budget" which we do not know about. All we know is about the budget for the new space telescope.

AC B - RIGHT because we were told that "spent more than half --> NOT cancel"

When spies are caught, they fail, and the only way they normally reveal their methods are when they are caught. However, a successful spy is never caught, so the available data is skewed because we can learn a lot about what makes a spy fail, but very little about what makes a spy successful.

We are looking for an answer with similar logic. So, something along the lines of the available data on X is limited while the available data on Y is more. So, we can learn more about Y than X.

This leaves us with AC B and E.

AC E: WRONG because it concludes that it is impossible to discern what happened, which is extreme. I am looking for something that says the data is skewed because we do not have so much opportunity to learn about X compared to Y.

AC B: CORRECT because it tells us that we are more likely to learn about other people’s conscious motives than their unconscious ones because the unconscious motives are usually impossible to acknowledge.

I interpreted this differently:

5 groups were tested;

Group 1 - Sparkle Cola and Cola A

Group 2 - Sparkle Cola and Cola B

Group 3 - Sparkle Cola and Cola C

Group 4 .- Sparkle Cola and Cola D

Group 5 - Sparkle Cola and Cola E

Conclusion: Sparkle Cola elicits a more favorable response from consumers than any of the competing colas tested.

Yeah, you cannot say this because each of these groups did not get to taste all the competing Colas. Group 1 did not taste Cola B-E, so you cannot conclude what their response would be if they tasted it.

That's exactly what AC A describes: Overlooks the possibility that a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers (overall sparkle cola came out on top) was not true of each of the five smaller groups (does not mean that each of those smaller groups prefers sparkle cola to ANY of the competing ones tested)

Carelessly chose C because I assumed it was just a paraphrased conclusion.

Premise:

(1) A —> B —> C

(2) A —> D —> E

(3) In general E —> F

Conclusion:

A —> F

When you diagram it like this, it is very obvious it is not the conclusion. It is a premise that when used in conjunction with premise 2, rounds up the argument and leads to the conclusion.

So, premises 1 and 2 were separate premises that did not lead to our conclusion, and premise 3, introduces what we need to reach our conclusion.

Carelessly chose C because I assumed it was just a paraphrased conclusion.

Premise:

(1) A ---> B ---> C

(2) A ---> D ---> E

(3) In general E ---> F

Conclusion:

A ---> F

When you diagram it like this, it is very obvious it is not the conclusion. It is a premise that when used in conjunction with premise 2, rounds up the argument and leads to the conclusion.

So, premises 1 and 2 were separate premises that did not lead to our conclusion, and premise 3, introduces what we need to reach our conclusion.

AC A: That most people favor a bill does not mean such bill would benefit most people.

AC B: I hated this because of the "opposed by influential people" part. We were told that those people who would be adversely affected were it to become law are very influential, and I believe saying the "oppose" was too strong. Also, it totally omits the violation of human rights part.

AC C: Only if those who oppose it are not very influential?? What happens to the violation of human rights aspect??

AC D: This discusses the bill, but I need something that leads me to the conclusion about a well-functioning democracy.

AC E: Perfect! Well-functioning democracy ---> if the bill does not violate anyone’s basic human rights and most people favor it, it will be passed promptly into law (with the exclusion of the influence of who would be affected)

Stimulus wants us to strengthen the law that specifies that XTX-containing waste products SHOULD NOT be diluted to accommodate incineration requirements.

AC A: This tells us that undiluted waste products can release more toxic waste if incinerated, so definitely not a support.

AC B: This tells us that the diluted is just as harmful as the concentrated, and it's a strengthener.

AC C: What?????

AC D: Irrelevant

AC E: Cost is the same?? Okay, how does this strengthen the anti-dilution law??