@ Hi Paula, could you help me getting access to CC v2 please? For some reason, the Switch button does not show up at the top of the syllabus for me.

#help Could anyone explain how we can infer "it would be possible that sharing info would prevent some unnecessary human suffering" from "not sharing may lead to unnecessary human suffering"? Wouldn't it be illogically to say that the effect of a cause be prevented just because the cause is simply voided or revoked? In JY's term, if we fail sufficient condition, the rule falls apart. I am wondering how we can draw that logical inference from "not shared -> suffering" to "sharing -> prevent suffering."

#help Question 7

I still don't understand how AC D can) be the correct answer for question 7. Are we assuming low-brow literature to be an unambitious literary genre? If so, on what ground can we much such an assumption? I am having a hard time finding evidence to make the AC D) correct.

Q24

Reason missed: lost track of what the theories were mentioned for each paragraphs of pB. Thus, went into questions blind.

Since it needs to support the contention made in the last paragraph of pA, it has to be something about keeping the original theory but negative result is not doing its job. Thus, ACs,(C) ~ (E), stemmed from the second paragraph of pB, can be eliminated.

(B) - is correct AC because it points to a negative evidence that doesn't help to prove a theory/hypothesis

Q25

Reason missed: same as Q24, didn't understand the last bit of pB. It's the failure to predict the orbit of Mercury had led scientists to reject the Newton's theory and accept Einstein's.

Q16

Reason missed: didn't understand the question stem, thus, chose an AC that was mentioned.

Sol: Make sure to understand the question before diving in

Q17

Reason missed: didn't interpret (C) correctly due, in partly, to overlooking a modifier in the sentence. And, incorrectly assume that there will be support in the passage for the incorrect answer, (D).

Sol: Read each AC thoroughly and make sure to have a justification for AC

Q19

D - no support for this, the wampum had already been used as an object to send political messages before the formation of the H Confed.

E - is supported by P3, X means usually something, Y means possibly something, etc. This indicates that these interpretations are not conclusive. This was very subtle and I did not catch this.

RM - chose an incorrect AC because I didn't like how the right AC is worded.

Q13

Reason missed: confused the term "real reasoning" with the judge's reasoning given to show how their judgement will be made.

(C) is right because it's personal bias - the real reason for recusal

Q14

Reason missed: initially chose (E) and changed to (A) because the author mentioned that the effect of current system is that it's vauge gudiance and focused on the apperance rather than the elimination of bias in the second passage. But the question stem is asking us to choose and AC that represents an effect of the current system. And, it's not failing to assure judical bias rather it's vague and may be not as effective as one would expect, hence, the author sugguest use an alternative method. (E) perfectly captures the effect of the current system.

Q7

RM: stupidly misinterpreted the meaning of a phrase, "Y is little more than X" as if it's saying it is similar in a way with X but greater in its intensity when it actually means that Y and X are different.

Q17

RM: didn't understand the reasoning structure of the passages.

Sol: read ACs carefully

(A) is wrong because there is no anticipating possible objection to the author's theory

(C) is wrong because passage A is making distinction between a lie and a lie without any harm, it's from generalization.

(D) is right because for passage A is harmless lie and in passage B, it's duty vs. right.

Q20

RM: did not fully understand the purpose of the question stem

Question is asking us to pick an AC that could resolve inconsistency between concepts mentioned in passage A and B.

Passage A: Being a pathological lier isn't sufficient reason to tell lie to him/her.

Passage B: If one acts immorally-irrational being, it authorizes similar action as a punishment

(B) explains this gap completely, rationality cannot be attributed to pathlogical behaviors. In other words, rationality doesn't apply to pathological behaviors, they are exceptions.

(A) is wrong because it's not addressing this point

#help Hi, in other JY's lessons, I've taught to not to bring in a new information to either strengthen or weaken the argument of the stimulus. Thought D perfectly does its job, it's bringing in this new information-lumpy mass- to strengthen the argument. Is there anyway that we can determine when it's right to bring sort of a new information to support the argument?

#HELP

Hi, in other JY's lessons, I've taught to not to bring in a new information to either strengthen or weaken the argument of the stimulus. Thought D perfectly does its job, it's bringing in this new information-lumpy mass- to strengthen the argument. Is there anyway that we can determine when it's right to bring sort of a new information to support the argument?

Hello Ken, I'm interested and think we are in next door!