Low Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Issue/Concession/Difference 1 and 2

Paragraph 2: Concession/Different conceptions 1 and 2

Paragraph 3: Expands on conception 2 - context, implication and = should be given more weight

MP: Can see why Jewett would be aligned with domestic novelists of the previous generation, but should not be

Tone: For Jewett, but understanding

Viewpoints: AP

A

Paragraph 1: Relation

Paragraph 2: Evidence

Paragraph 3: Execption

MP: Usually more agricultural dependence, more decays

Tone: Scientific

B

Paragraph 1: Population that HG to DA

Paragraph 2: Decay may be from increased carbs or alterations in tooth wear

Paragraph 3: Diet

Paragraph 4: Do not conform to generalization

MP: Do not conform to generalization

Tone: Scientific

Viewpoints: Slight surprise

Low Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Issue/-CMMI1+2

Paragraph 2: -CMMI3/+CMMI1

Paragraph 3: -CMMI4/+CMMI2+3, Ex

Paragraph 4: +CMMI4

MP: CMMI have a legitimate place in courtrooms

Tone: For use of CMMI in court

Viewpoints: Some opponents of the general use of CMMI, AP, Some lawyers

Low Resolution:

Paragraph 1: M1 - radiocarbon dating

Paragraph 2: M2 - lichenometry

Paragraph 3: Evaluation = M2 is better than M1 (AP)

MP: lichenometry is better than radiocarbon dating

Tone: Pro lichenometry

Viewpoints: AP

Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Report/What is said

Paragraph 2: Specifics of what it said/Aim/Conditions

Paragraph 3: AP does not like it 1

Paragraph 4: AP does not like it /reasons hold for all clients

MP: These fees have issues associated with them

Tone: Not liking it

Viewpoints: AP

I totally get you! I could not figure out q15 at all and I felt like I missed something super obvious as well, but it's a hard question

Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Start of C political activism/Grape boycott/theatre

Paragraph 2: Inspo for valdez/how acto worked/aim/effect

Paragraph 3: No tonly valdex/acto collective effort = valdex + carpas

MP: Teatro Campnes was part of Chicano political activism as led by Valdez, but was a collective effort

Tone: Not only valdez effort

Viewpoints: Valdez, AP, Yolanda

A

Paragraph 1: Aristotle finding/Von Frisch pattern/specific mechanism?

Paragraph 2: Wenner and Esch sounds/Many scientists thought bees had no hearing/Wenner said the smell

Paragraph 3: Gould said not smell/Kirchner and Michelsen said sounds

MP: Bees communicate through sound to other bees to tell them about a good food source

Tone: For the sound of bees

Viewpoints: Many as said above, AP

B

Paragraph 1: All animals communicate/some symbolically/Seyfarth et. al. Vervet study

Paragraph 2: Von Frisch - bees dance/Wenner - smell, but not so

Paragraph 3: Do not follow ANY information, Gould

MP: Some animals communicate symbolically

Tone: Neutral

Viewpoints: Many as said above and AP

Low Resolution:

Paragraph 1: What is SS/NU - no SS 1

Paragraph 2: NU - no SS 2-4/NU suggestion

Paragraph 3: Opponents of NU/AP defends NU against their opponents

MP: NU does not like SS and believes development should be done based on early 20th c urban neighborhoods

Tone: Side of NU

Viewpoints:NU, Opponents of NU and AP

I'm not sure if this is the correct way of thinking, but if we have already figured out the contrapositive of the second principle (I'm ignoring the first principle as it is much easier) - can't we just look for a conclusion that matches either - Retool/ or [legally required or long term substantial savings] instead of combing through each answer choice under timed conditions?

#help

The way I eliminated D was to say that - "less favorable position" doesn't necessarily mean that their prosperity was impacted one way or another, it requires us to make a lot of assumptions in order to get the answer to fit

Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Experiment

Paragraph 2: UG/how it often played out/Puzzling according to economics

Paragraph 3: Some theorists - prehistoric ancestors need for support of a strong group

Paragraph 4: AP - Years of living in small groups and evolution favored angry responses to low offers

MP: Response in UG to reject low offers probably stems from the evolutionary response that favored angry responses to low offers

Tone: "Compelling explanation"

Viewpoints: AP

Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Who/Characteristics/Ex

Paragraph 2: CB mentor/Led to thinking that sculptors relied only on a negative light

Paragraph 3: Returned to the US to work for BF where he started to use chrome steel

Paragraph 4: Fundamental invisibility of surface + analogy - communicated through reflections of images surrounding them

Paragraph 5: Natural evolution

MP: IN brought about the use of positive light reflections and fundamentally invisible surfaces

Tone: Likes IN

Viewpoints: AP

Low Resolution:

Paragraph 1: False impression

Paragraph 2: Reality/Skill 1

Paragraph 3: Skill 2

Paragraph 4: Counterargument and response

High Resolution:

Paragraph 1: What/Problem/ False impression 1 and 2

Paragraph 2: Reality/Example/Interpretation

Paragraph 3: Synthesis - able laws as a whole and synthesize other areas

Paragraph 4: Regionally different/Skills acquired in mastering statutes important

MP: Statutory law should be there so that there is interpretation and synthesis

Tone: Pro statutory law

Viewpoints: AP and "counter argument" people

A

Paragraph 1: Recent studies/Problems

Paragraph 2: Brute force explanation/Ex/available computers inadequate for the task

Paragraph 3: Available computers capacity increasing and the task can be shared/public participation

MP: New way of computers to compute trends via individual computers sharing the load

Tone: Not happy with old way

Viewpoints: AP

B

Paragraph 1: "Parallel"

Paragraph 2: Ex of ants

Paragraph 3: Pradigm shift from sequential to parallel

MP: Pradigm shift from sequential to parallel as exemplified in nature

Tone: Excited about new way

Viewpoints: AP

When I mapped these concepts out in lawgic, I found it much easier to eliminate. Since it's an MSS question all we have to do it take the premises offered to us and push out a truth based on some or all of them. I eliminated A because the conditional as I understood it was - Apologise sincerely --> acknowledge acted wrongfully, but A combines these concepts in an incorrect manner.

I think this question has a lot to do with being able to suppress information. So:

P1 - Medical specialist --> [let's represent the information about graduating as D]

P2 - Medical specialist (recognised) --> complete evaluation

C - So any who qualified to be a recognized Medical specialist is competent

Now, why should I believe that? Well the recognized gives us a clue as to the assumption the argument is making - that if you complete the evaluation you are components and C states that.

Yep sounds about right!

So when I was breaking down the argument, the conclusion - Bach is remembered not because of his high ration, but because he was a prolific composer, which we are told means he composed a lot. The reason we are given for this is that - because he composed a lot i.e was prolific, of course, his ratio would be high.

So we need to weaken the structure for this argument:

(A) Correct - This directly weakens the support that because he was prolific and so his ratio was high, he was remembered as other composers who were prolific, should have also had a high ratio and been remembered by the same logic, but that is not the case.

(B) Okay great, but irrelevant

(C) Forgotten doesn't mean not included

(D) Don't need exact because we are discussing ratios

(E) Irrelevant

So the way I did it was to suppress the argument first and map out the logical relation which is Problem disappear ---> Only if (Gov steps in) --> Raise taxes. To conclude that "this" is the referential phrase for Gov and not Problem, you need to try and just parse out the argument to understand that the necessary condition for problem disappearing is government intervention and so it makes sense that the necessary condition for government intervention is raising taxes.

I know it's very confusing, so I hope that helps even a little bit!

Not sure if this helps, but from "governments should not be prevented from allocating resources to projects whose intended consequences do not directly benefit most people", I didn't see how this was the principle because the stimulus did not discuss intended consequences do not directly benefit most people, but rather it talked about unintended consequences that have had a tremendous impact on daily life. So that's how I eliminated A.

Because B doesn't adequately ID the flaw in the argument - the flaw is not "that is presumes without justification that being careful means avoidance", the flaw is that is doesn't address the central concern as AC C says.

B

High Resolution:

Paragraph 1: Expectations is a key determinant in musical emotions/About build up and release of tension

Paragraph 2: Mismacth

Paragraph 3: Familiarity and pleasure

MP: Expectation is a key determinant in musical emotions

Tone: Neutral

Viewpoints: AP