Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
The conclusion claims that these humans possessed on aesthetic sense on the basis of evidence that they polished their flints more than what was required for hunting. In other words, the support for the conclusion hinges on the assumption that the extra polish in flint was for aesthetic, rather than practical, purposes. However, with answer choice D weakens that assumption. It says that the extra polish in flint can be explained by its utility. In other words, under this explanation, the purpose is practical, not necessarily aesthetic. Thus the support bridge to the conclusion is weakened. It's not that we're saying that the polish of flint absolutely cannot be used for aesthetic purposes, but rather now using the extra polished flint as evidence that they possessed an aesthetic sense is less convincing. Hope this did not confuse you more
Yeah, this is how I interpreted it too -- just because something would have bad consequences if it is true, doesn't mean that it must be false.
The first clause of premise B ("assumes without warrant that a characteristic that distinguishes one class of things from another") in itself relies on a faulty assumption (I think). That statement assumes that features that attract insects distinguish orchids that are pollinated solely by insects from orchid species that are not pollinates solely by insects, and then offers a different reason for why it is flawed
I originally eliminated D because I felt like it questioned a premise that is stated, and therefore could not be correct (thought that it was a general principle that we should not question premises). Upon review I selected D because the other answers were so off-base, but still a little uneasy with choosing D for this reason. Can anyone help?
I'm struggling to have JY's explanation on this one click. JY says the author doesn't say anything but location, but the author states that "Actual communities are nonintentional," and uses people who inhabit towns as an example. For me, using physical location as an instance of nonintentionality seems to imply that living in the same geographical location creates the exact kind of diversity that is required for a community. For me, there's a gap in the "interdependence" piece of E. Any advice in crystalizing this thought process?
Yes. You can bring soft, foam earplugs that are not connected by a wire into the testing room.