I just redid this passage after 7 months and missed #24 again, but I finally get what's wrong with E. By the way I appreciate your comment.

I originally thought that the reason why monarchs were later forced to respect property rights was because they didn't in the past. While this is implicitly true, the passage says that the const. settlement from the Glorious Rev. was the cause for the change, not the actual absence of limitations.

I just had a problem separating cause/effect from the Q stem

I got hung up on D since "testimony" seemed like an inappropriate way to describe signed petitions

The author cites 250k years in the example in order to show that 250k years is not recent. So anything recent would mean that the event must occurred less than 250k years ago (to be consistent with the author's logic)

Now to strengthen the author's claim, we should to show that a practice could be both recent and caused human evolution. Even though 5k years in B is not "sufficient" to conclude "recent", it is much more defendable as recent than 250k years ago.

Other ACs in #25 (like A and D) mention "early humans", but that's vague. Presumably "early" would mean at least or around 250k years ago, which is far less recent than 5k years in B. E doesn't mention a time frame. and C seems unrelated

I hope this helps!

that moment when #25 looks like a RecS but is actually an infer

gambler's fallacy. I feel its so rare for this flaw to be tested

#help

Maybe someone can help me explain why B is wrong? If you contrapose the conditional, it makes the A --> B, B, then A flaw.

There are other parallel questions that exploit contraposing the conditional for the correct AC. Why can't we do it here?

revisited this passage and I still hate A. Crossed it out again for the exact same reason again after 7 months

A, on the other hand, is pretty logically rigorous: if reading protocols determine genres, then naturally works written with no specific expected reading protocols will be ambiguous in terms of genre.

That's the opposite of logically rigorous. You are concluding !A --> !B from knowing A--> B

cheeky little question

ok, so turns out I got confused. Sometimes, conditionality might not exclude causality, while other times it is compatible with causality.

But here, it excludes causality because the conditional mentions something that must occur before, whereas E treats it as an effect (what occurs after)

Paragraph 1 makes a distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a view derived from Darwin's ideas. Darwinism is a scientific theory, but Social Darwinism is not. They are not the same.

I think JY was correct in keeping these 2 ideas distinct. I hope this was helpful to anyone stuck on it :)

#help

Q27 E:

What's the difference between "requires" and "lead to"? I thought they were the same.

Because of that, I felt the last sentence was verbatim in answer choice E.

This question tests the concept of expected value, which makes D wrong. The argument already considers the expected value, so mentioning chance of winning does nothing to the argument

Like others, I got this question right but felt that E was lacking as an AC.

Even if E is true, it still allows the conclusion to be possible: Some celestial objects that are not planets or stars could could indeed be generating light. This sentence is compatible with E

#help

Thank you! I finally realized how less good C is.

- B explicitly says birds hunt the lemurs, while C doesn't say snakes hunt the lemurs

- While I still think it's a reasonable assumption that snakes can see lemurs better with more light, B explicitly mentions that birds use their eyesight to hunt lemurs, while this idea of eyesight/vision is not suggested in C

kwpratt said RF, not DF. It does explain why DF made lemurs more nocturnal than RF lemurs, but doesn't explain why RF lemurs became nocturnal in the first place. IMO this distinction doesn't need to be explained

IMO C does explain...

With less leaves in the winter, more light falls into parts of DF. Naturally, snakes would be able to see lemurs better with more light.

Conversely, the less nocturnal activity in RF is also explained by there being more cover.

#help

IMO this was too hard for a Q1

#help

Q22.

Why can't words like "troublesome", "elegant but speculative", "claim to found such evidence", "circumstantial evidence", and "they claim" be used to denote a dismay at lack of rigor?

I do feel like JY's explanation is a bit long.

The author basically says that jury often gives undue weight on a defendant's confession evidence, and that juries aren't aware of this. Then the author argues that juries can also give undue weight on a cooperating witness's evidence without knowing.

- There could be various levels of "undue weight". One could be more heavy than the author.

- The Q stem also says "explicitly", and the author doesn't explicitly say how much weight they give relative to each other

IMO #25 is an unfair question. It's the discovery of the black swan that disproves the white swan theory. But the discovery of Mercury, nor that of any planet, didn't disprove Newton's laws.

If anything, it was the discovery of Einstein's laws being a better model than Newton's for Mercury's orbit that functions as the black swan, not a planet itself.

This Q stem was evil for a variety of ways. It combines wording we see from 3 different question types: NA, SA, and PSA

#help

I thought Edward doesn't think taxation counts as forcing, as long as emigration is allowed? Like Edward would think the government isn't forcing taxation, since people can always choose to leave (i.e. they have an option to not get taxed)

Another flaw in the argument is that the argument fails to address the possibility that actions could be altruistic without appearing to be altruistic

#help

Why is the gap between "wants" and "will" not a problem in B? The same verb "support" is duplicated in the conclusion for the stimulus, but not for B.

Moreover, the lack of "all" as a quantifier is meaningless. "All swans are white" is the same as "swans are white". I am struggling to not see a contradiction between miller supporting (all) proposals to increase school funding and potentially not supporting one that gathers money via increased property taxes.