I eliminated (A) because I thought ' fails to consider ~' should be other way around: ' it takes for granted that the dietary habits were the same.' That means, it takes for granted that holding others equal, rather than failing to consider at all.

Now that I see the review, I understand that maintaining perfect control is impossible and unnecessary, thus (A) being wrong. But I was wondering whether my first intuition was also valid. Any opinion? #help

For Q.4, is it ok to think unable to lend its printed books as an object clause? (and this leading to the consequence of displaying them only when requested)

Thought that finding out 'they are unable to lend so they displayed them only when requested' was quite odd- (since finding out their OWN action doesn't seem to flow logically)

nice

I just failed to point out the right flaw for this question. Chose (B) and was pondering with (C) cause I thought the flaw was like the below..

A>B

C>D

------

C more likely to be A

I missed that they were talking about the different subset in the premise and the conclusion, and tried to find the one that says it conflates two different comparison in the premise. That's why I chose (B), saying that A can be C, since it highlights that two comparison are somewhat different (even though saying A can be C isn't enough for this at the first place)

Even after getting wrong, I thought my problem was 'maybe I didn't think clear enough.. Even if A, C is both 51% compared to B and D, 49% of C can be B..' and every AC didn't seem right.

But now I see the flaw doesn't reach to this point, since it talks about the different subset(newspaper and general) that cannot be compared at the first place. As I realized this, now (D) seems to clear.

My keytakeaway is that it's always important to really understand what arguments (before just extracting the elements from the argument), and also have a spider sense on what is different.. (also the framework for thinking flaw; generalization)

Literally had the same problem haha sobbing

for #26, knowing what the main point REALLY means was crucial.

(Whole point of the passage was that 'sovereignty's unlimited power can be a problem since that means you can just flip your decisions around..)

or I should have raised question on my assumption thinking that the Q stem is analogous to the situation between the crown and the parliament (limiting the power to gain trust), and looked for other situation that can be inferred from (maybe about the bigger situation of crown's inability to loan money because of the sovereignty)

Same question !!!! #help

same here..

This was also my thought process! Thanks

As I also look back at (D), I simply picked this because it incorporated a lot of topics that were mentioned (african american writers, composes...) But clearly, if it's not accurate or not supported, it's wrong!

Maybe I'll approach MP by 1) POE of wrong / unsupported pieces, 2) than tackle the scope (too narrow or broad enough)

#15 narrowed down to (D) and (E) but picked (D).

Didn't pick (E) because

- understood that Duke's example was introduced to explain Morrison's style (against that book Jazz was inspired by Duke's composition style)

- and since I was trying to differentiate direct motivation and explaining through analogy , I conflated 'not being directly inspired' and 'not being suggested as literary analogue itself'.... even though the passage explicitly mention 'same effect that Morrison achieved in Jazz, a literary rendering of an art of composition that Duke perfected'

(thought I couldn't say that Morrison succeeded in creating strategy 'that is a analogue of Duke's style', since it wasn't written as a literary analogue, just had similar traits)

But as I review, I should have read (E) as Morrison succeed in creating narrative strategy (modified by 'that is literary analogue of Duke's style'), just simply meaning that Morrison's strategy is literary analogous to Duke's style.

My takeaway is to evaluate the AC based on the passage + understand AC as literally as possible..

my key takeaway was 'differentiate criteria clearly'

Stim is saying 'gov practice might abuse power, and shouldn't be undertaken... except in cases with compelling reason' = A not allowed, unless B

(B), (D) is both confusing with this different criteria..

(B) is saying if there's B, it's not A. But it's not. Even if it's B, it can be still A - you're just allowed now)

(D) is saying if no B, guilty of A. But there might be no B, and still no A as well. concealing info has high possibility of A, not always A.

had the exact same thoughts. thanks helped a lot!

hope I'm not too late, but let me try to elaborate

stim says If the theory is correct, people will act in ways that they expect will benefit themselves / but theory isn't true since people act in ways that 'result in no personal benefit'.

Here, the flaw is that expecting to benefit themselves isn't the same with result in the benefit. Maybe, even though the result turned out to have no benefit, they might have expected to be beneficial - meaning the theory can still be valid.

(E) tackles this, saying people acting that result has no benefit, may have been expected to have that benefit.

+ I was startled with (C) at first since it talks about the similar problem, but it says people acting in ways that are 'beneficial' expected that to be... But we need to tackle 'people acting in ways that there are no personal benefit'.

Hope it helps!

very helpful thanks

To put it simple, answer (A) is wrong since it's just restating the correlation again

same here