AC Breakdown:

(A) - MC never mentioned about women being property owners

(B) - correct

MC: "Since no reasoning could justify the perpetuation of any inequality, he argued, this intellectually untenable situation of women's inequality was historically condemned to disappear soon."

OG: "...exposed harmful inconsistencies in the period's revolutionary universalism"

(C) - MC's argument was theoretical and didn't mention any legislative approaches

"Where Condorcet's arguments were purely theoretical and did not include specific legislative proposals..."

(D) - OG would disagree with this - she believed women's rights needed to be addressed specifically through political actions

(E) - neither of them mentioned governmental power

"She argued that the prevailing political inequality kept women at a disadvantage in all their dealings with men, including marriage, and that this ubiquitous disadvantage would continue until women were granted full political rights, equal access to property, and public employment."

Based on the above sentence, we can infer that political equality is the requirement for marriage.

(A) (B) (C) and (E) are not supported from the passage

OG's view: women's rights should be acquired through political movement

AC Breakdown

(A) - descriptively incorrect - it's not against men not willing to engage in reasonable discussion.... it's against political inequality women were facing

(B) - descriptively incorrect - it's not "women and all others" - OG's POV was very women-focused

(C) - this is correct.

Support:

"She argued that the prevailing political inequality kept women at a disadvantage in all their dealings with men, including marriage" (marriage could be referred as private spheres)

"women were granted full political rights, equal access to property, and public employment" (public employment could be referred as public spheres)

(D) - OG never mentioned about key allies from men

(E) - she didn't believe that women's rights would be realized thru revolution

"...exposed harmful inconsistencies in the period's revolutionary universalism, noting that after the Revolution women's political rights were still limited"

Low-res:

P1 - intro to 2 args on women's rights:

MC - est thru universal equal rights

OG - need political actions

P2 - Deep dive into MC's point of view

P3 - Deep dive into OG's view and contrast that to MC's

Main Point - introducing 2 different views on women's rights

AC Breakdown

(A) - "not easy for most members to evaluate" - not supported anywhere

(B) - the passage never mentions the views were thought initially to be radically opposed

(C) - this is not the main point... wrong focus

(D) - match the main point

(E) - descriptively inaccurate - neither OG nor MC believed those things

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

Consumers primarily care about reliability, and yet, some of the most reliable cars do not sell well. Why?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this is just restating the prem. now we know that the consumers care more about reliability than FE, but that doesn't explain why reliable car sales are not great

(B) - this potentially can be the reason why. consumers think that car A is reliable based on its reputation, but in fact, car B is the most reliable type.

(C) - the scope of the prem is "consumers shopping for automobiles". This AC is talking about some people who have cars already

(D) - irrelevant - are these models reliable or not? we don't know

(E) - irrelevant - no one is saying that the consumers are buying the most stylish automobiles

AC Breakdown:

(A) - descriptively incorrect - boundary theory never identified key responsibilities of owners. In fact, that's one of the flaws the author pointed out.

(B) - we don't know if bundle theory scholars criticized boundary theory; we only know the vice versa is true.

(C) - correct - the concept here is "exclusive right".

Boundary theory identifies this concept: "But while the boundary theory properly recognizes that there is a concept of ownership that constrains legal decisions...." (1st sentence in P2)

However, it does misinterpret the concepts: "...the boundary theory wrongly assumes that what it means for ownership to be exclusive is just that others generally have a duty to exclude themselves from the object owned." (1st sentence in P3)

(D) - descriptively incorrect - boundary theory only excludes who can't have rights, but it doesn't specify what rights the owners have

(E) - the passage never implies a general theory of rights

Context: "However, there is a distinction between a right's being exclusive in the sense that it excludes others from the object of the right and its being exclusive in the sense that its holder occupies a special position that others do not share."

AC Breakdown:

(A) - bundle theory never mentions exclusive rights; also this paragraph is about comparing boundary and agenda-setting theory

(B) - correct answer

(C) - unintelligible is too extreme - the author just simply points out boundary theory's wrong assumptions, not suggesting boundary theory doesn't make sense

(D) - same as (A)

(E) - not true - bundle theory never mentions about exclusive rights

I used POE for this one

Bundle theory depends on individual judicial decisions

AC Breakdown

(A) - hmmm maybe? Let's revisit

(B) - excluding others - that's boundary theory

(C) - again, similar to (B), the notion of excluding is not a part of the bundle theory

(D) + (E) - same issue - exclusive right is not mentioned a part of the bundle theory

Revisit (A) - I guess because the rights largely depend on judicial decisions, its not guaranteed that 2 property owners have the same rights (e.g., maybe the 2 owners reside in different states and judicial decisions within each state are different)

This is most likely a stated question

AC Breakdown

(A) - not supported - we never talked about rights and responsibilities of non-owners

(B) - this is not mentioned in the passage....

(C) - supported - "it fails to explain crucial features of ownership" (1st sentence in P2)

(D) - we never talked about flawed judicial decisions.....

(E) - this is not supported; the meaning of boundary is consistent throughout

Low-res summary:

P1 - introduce 2 theories: bundle vs. boundary

bundle: dependent on judicial decisions

boundary: right to exclude others

P2 - author's POV - critique boundary theory

P3 - introduce an alternative theory (i.e., agenda-setting)

AC Breakdown

(A) - the main point is not to criticize bundle theories, it's to introduce agenda-setting theory

(B) - this doesn't highlight author's POV; this AC is simply stating the facts

(C) - this one closely matches to low-res: the author prefers agenda-setting theory

(D) - this doesn't mention agenda-setting theory

(E) - descriptively wrong - agenda-setting does NOT solely focus on excluding others; that's boundary theory

Low-res summary:

P1 - overall significance of JO's comics

P2 - surface-level summary of the comics

P3 - author's POV: actual significance of JO's comics

P4 - additional significance - offer audience real-life lessons

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

last year: vac --> /[flu]

this year: vac

concl:

this year: /[flu]

Logic:

use past pattern to predict the future

AC Breakdown:

(A) - follows the logic pattern described above

(B) - mismatch - the conclusion should be along the line of "since Marie will purchase a car this year again, the car will be well maintained"

(C) - this doesn't have the past vs. future element

(D) - same as (C)

(E) - this is chained conditional logic

eat --> /[hard shell] --> /[tree seed]

Stim / TLDR:

prem (in my own words):

generally, false ideas become less popular when they are debated openly. However, some fake news actually gains popularity when debated.

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the stim consists of factual statements / descriptive language. It never mentions anything about something "should" or "shouldn't" be done.

(B) - same as (A). (B) is making a value judgment (i.e., it's better to do something)

(C) - this is not supported - we don't know that from the stim

(D) - this is supported - even though there are open debates, some misconceptions are being promoted further / gain popularity, so debates don't always promote truth

(E) - we don't know the reasonings why these ideas are so appealing - it could be that they are very inflammatory

same here - interested

Stim / TLDR:

concl:

gen eng crop in production --> rigorous testing

AC Breakdown:

(A) we don't know what will happen if the testing is shown risky

correct version should be:

gen eng crop should not be put into agricultural production if rigorous testing is not conducted (contrapositive of concl)

(B) - again we don't know what will happen if the testing is shown not risky

(C) - yessss.... contrapositive of concl

/[thoroughly tested] --> /[allow in production]

(D) - same as (A)

(E) - same as (B)

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

(1) rural --> lunch prog

(2) ~1/2 urban --> lunch prog

(3) XC activities <-s-> lunch program

concl:

XC activities <-s-> rural and urban

Flaw:

Within the set of lunch programs, the sets of rural, urban, and XC students don't have to intersect with each other

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we don't know how many strong academic achievers vs. non-strong academic achievers

(B) - we don't know how many rural and urban students participate in extra curricular and the arg doesn't assume this

(C) - match identified flaw

(D) - irrelevant - we only care about students who participate XC activities

(E) - there's no equivocation here / the meaning of participate stays the same throughout

Stim / TLDR

prem:

(1) train --> howl

(2) wash <-s-> train

concl:

wash <-s-> howl

(the logic here is correct - it's the some + all logic)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - doesn't match - this is all + some logic

(1) serious jogger --> benefit from good shoes

(2) benefit from good shoes <-s-> prefer ord shoes

----------

serious jogger <-s-> prefer ord shoes

(B) - this is most + some logic - doesn't match

(C) - matches!

(1) serious jogger --> benefit from good shoes

(2) serious joggers <-s-> prefer ord shoes

with some relationship, we can swap the two elements. We can also write:

(2) prefer ord shoes <-s-> serious joggers

----------

benefit from good shoes <-s-> prefer ord shoes

(D) - this is some + some logic - doesn't match

(E) - conclusion doesn't match

(1) serious jogger --> benefit from good shoes

(2) serious jogger <-s-> occ prefer ord shoes

----------

benefit from good shoes --> prefer ord shoes

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

comp out of biz --> some suppliers bankrupt

(contrapositive)

/[some suppliers bankrupt] --> /[comp out of biz]

concl:

mfg in biz --> /[comp out of biz]

Assumption:

mfg in biz --> /[some suppliers bankrupt]

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we need a conditional logic here

(B) - sufficiency-necessity confusion of conclusion

(C) - contrapositive of (B)

(D) - sufficiency-necessity confusion of identified assumption

(E) - contrapositive of identified assumption

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

(1) OPV: when we think about computers in terms of beliefs and desires to understand their functions --> computers have beliefs and desires

(2) author's point of view (APV): we have already do that, so based on this logic, computers have beliefs and desires already

concl:

(1) is wrong

Simplified Logic:

A

A -> B

(assuming /B)

---------

/A

Role:

"computers that exist now have beliefs and desires" - this is the absurd consequence that author assumes is not true (aka B in the above diagram)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - yesss

(B) - opposite - the arg assumes it's controversial

(C) - it doesn't clarify

(D) - no the conclusion is the last sentence

(E) - opposite - it's the premise whose falsity is necessary to the success of the arg (we need to deny B)

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

(phenomenon) the day after DST, there are more accidents than average

concl:

(hypothesis): accidents are prob due to sleep deprivation

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this potentially weakens the arg:

accidents are not due to sleep deprivation, but people are in a rush, therefore causing accidents

(B) - irrelevant

the stim says "...7% greater than the average for that time of the year" - so we are only focusing on spring

(C) - irrelevant

we don't care about the severity; we want to know why there are more accidents

(D) - there's a correlation between # of accidents and sleep deprivation - looking good

(E) - irrelevant

it doesn't connect the relationship between accidents and sleep deprivation

Stim / TLDR:

stim

(1) grow quickly --> take more CO2 than release

(2) grow slowly --> release more CO2 than take

(3) substantial increase of CO2 --> temp increase

(4) more temp increase --> grow more slowly

AC Breakdown:

(A) - "invariably" - too strong

(B) - TRAP ANSWER

Based on (3), we know that temp will increase, and the plant growth will be slowed. However, we don't know it will be slow enough that the plants would release more CO2 than take in... it could be that even though the growth is slower than before, the plants still take more than release CO2 from the atmosphere

(C) - supported - (3) + (4)

(D) - this is sufficiency - necessity confusion of prem (4)

(E) - this is sufficiency - necessity confusion of prem (3)

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

(1) SN use to make sausage pink

(2) excessive use of SN --> increase consumption of sodium --> health problems

concl:

SN should never be added

Flaw:

this is too extreme - the prem says excessive use has negative impact on health; what about just a little?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - there's no sample mentioned

(B) - (i initially chose this one) the arg actually does address the risk of not adding SN at all - the sausage wouldn't be pink (?)

(C) - where does the gov come from? we don't sense any libertarianism from the stim....

(D) - match our flaw

(E) - irrelevant - why does the distinction between med and econ justification matter here?

Stim / TLDR:

principle:

[author published in mag 1] AND [either [criticism in mag 1] OR [unfair criticism in mag 2] ]--> author respond in mag 1

application:

McF should respond in SD

Gap:

2 scenarios that can justify the application:

(1) McF published in SD and Wallace also published in SD

(2) McF published in SD and Wallace published in a non-SD mag with unfair critique

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we need to know where Wallace published his piece

(B) - we need to know whether McF published in SD

(C) - this seems to be scenario (2) but we don't know if Wallace's criticism is unfair or not

(D) - match scenario (1)

(E) - this is a mash of scenario (1) and (2)

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

(1) valuable contribution --> well-run

(2) [large] AND [well run] --> some FT vet

(3) [small] AND [well run] <-s-> only PT vet

(4) [large] and [valuable contribution] <-s-> open all year

(5) small -m-> closed in winter

combining (1) + (4)

MBT#1: [large] + [well run] <-s-> open all year

combining MBT#1 + (2)

open all year <-s-> [large] + [well run] --> some FT vet

MBT#2: open all year <-s-> some FT vet

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we don't know if most large zoos are well run

(B) - we just know from prem (2) that they have some FT vet, that doesn't mean they don't have any PT vets

(C) - this is sufficiency-necessity confusion of prem (1)

we know from prem (3) that some zoos that are small and well run only have PT vets, but that doesn't mean they make valuable contribution. There could be other means to make a zoo well run

(D) - match MBT#2

(E) - we only know most small zoos are closed in the winter; we don't know any other information about them

Stim / TLDR:

prem:

more famous --> greater pleasure audience experience

concl:

audience can distinguish good from bad

AC Breakdown:

(A) - more famous --> more talent

This explains / strengths that the audience can distinguish good from bad

(B) - this weakens the arg - it seems like audience doesn't know any better

(C) - this does't strengthen the arg - the audience could just be there because of the fame, not because they can tell if the pianists are good or not

(D) - this doesn't strengthen the arg - we don't know anything about how the audience reacts to the performance

(E) - this weakens the arg - the audience prob cannot tell good performance from bad