A - Suppliers to farmers could have their businesses fail for other reasons unrelated to crop failure. Also this only discusses wheat crops, we can't generalize to all of farming.

B - "Rainfall below average" doesn't necessarily mean "a lack of rain." Slightly below average rainfall may not lead to other businesses failing even a majority of the time.

C - Lack of rain is a factor outside the farmers' control, but maybe they can still be held responsible for the general outcome of wheat crop failure. (By failing to prepare adequately, etc.)

D - Completely out of scope.

E - Drought = lack of rain. The consequences of a drought clearly impact sectors beyond farming like truckers and mechanics.

#feedback I feel like there is an assumption here that only Disney Vacation Club members can access the Genie+ pass. The stimulus says what DVC members must do to get the Genie+ pass, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that there may be other ways to get the pass as a non-DVC club member.

The fact that some of the details were erased doesn't change the fact that the remaining footprint still has definitively human characteristics - the squarish heel and the big toe.

Maybe the erased details show something really weird and non-human, maybe they just show other human characteristics. But you don't know for sure from the answer choice that the details would show that the feet are nonhuman. For all we know, Dr. Tyson could still be right and we could just be missing extra human characteristics from the footprint.

Stimulus: Joshua Smith's book was criticized for being too "implausible." But that criticism is unwarranted. If you actually read the book, you would see that each incident that the hero gets involved in could happen to anybody.

Prephrase: Ok, so this is saying that because every incident that the hero gets involved in is something that sounds plausible, that means that the book as a whole is plausible. But what if those incidents, while they make sense independently, don't make sense when they're strung together? This isn't a great example, but let's say that on 12/21/2020 at noon, I was at the grocery store. Also, at that same time, I was at the movies. Those two separate things could happen to anybody, but those two things can't happen together, so as a whole it isn't plausible.

Correct answer, D : This is exactly that prephrase. The argument assumes that the whole story will have a certain characteristic (be plausible) just because the parts are plausible. Maybe each incident (each part) that the hero gets involved in is plausible, but as a whole it doesn't sound realistic.

This question is just a matter of addition. So, 77% of the students endorsed a liberal position.

The students breakdown is as follows:

25% - conservative

24% - liberal

51% - middle of the road

Let's say all of the "middle of the road" students endorsed the liberal position (were part of that 77%). And then let's say all of the liberal students endorsed the liberal position too. 51% + 24% = 75%. That means at least some of the conservative students endorsed the liberal position, because that doesn't quite add up to 77% of all the students.

Alternatively, let's say all of the middle of the road students and all of the conservative students voted for the liberal position. That's a total of 51% + 25% = 76%. So at least some of the liberal students endorsed the liberal position.

And of course, if you have all the conservative and liberal students endorse the liberal position, that's only 49% of all the students, so you need some "middle of the road" students to make up the gap.

Basically, that means that within the 77% that endorsed the liberal position, all three groups are going to be represented.

So that makes D the right answer, because even if you have all of the liberal and middle of the road students endorsing the liberal position, that still leaves us with a small gap that needs to be filled, and the only other group of students are the conservatives.

Hi! I’m interested. Taking February.

C) negation test - There were plays written last year that the drama critic has neither read nor seen performed.

This doesn't necessarily wreck the conclusion - it still leaves open the possibility that even those plays that the critic didn't see doesn't meet his standards for longevity.

Also as others have pointed out maybe the critic can be certain that no other plays meet his criteria because he has heard about them from other reviewers, who said those plays don't examine human nature skillfully.

Gotta be careful about not glossing over concepts that don't link up, like future popularity and regular screening.

Taking in February, I’m interested!

Taking in February but I’m interested!

Another reason why D is wrong: it says those comets were thrown into those oval orbits by a close encounter "WITH SOME OTHER OBJECT."

We are trying to prove that oval-orbit planets in other solar systems became that way because of a close encounter with other PLANETS orbiting the same sun.

What if those comets in our solar system were thrown into oval orbits because of a stray satellite, or an asteroid? (I know, probably not plausible because of weak gravitational pull, but for the sake of argument.) The point is that it does not specify, and so it does not give us any reason to believe that planets in other solar systems with an oval orbit became that way because of nearby PLANETS.

A little more difficult than normal for me. I missed -4 and -2 on the LR sections for that one.

22.

(A) is wrong because there is no implication that the first criticism is pointing at "dishonorable motives." Rather, Victorian philanthropy was simply ineffective in addressing the kinds of problems that were prevalent during that time.

(D) is correct. The first criticism states that these problems necessitated action from the state. As for the second criticism, it's a little tricky. But since the 2nd criticism points at the "self-serving" nature of the management class, I believe you can infer that the government would not have such a motive, because the government has no reason to "flaunt wealth," "cultivate social connections," or "ensure the dominance of the management class."

"Generally accepted" is not "unanimously accepted." There still could be some hardcore skeptics even if the GENERAL public accepts the existence of ESP.

C - maybe the proposed law applies to everyone equally, but well-to-do professionals are just more aware of the new law because they have more access to information and professional support

"concerning specific flights" should have stood out to me more. It made me pause, but I went and chose it anyway. The stim doesn't assume the tapes are inaccurate about specific flights. You might assume that the stim is implying that the tapes are inaccurate somehow, but it's a stretch to say the stim assumes that about "specific flights."

Citizen's group: A new business park would bring in twice the amount of business that your highway would, so if you really cared about the economy, you would've built a new business park.

To make this argument work, the mayor has to be on the same page that a new business park would bring more business than the highway. If the mayor believes that the highway brings in more business, then he could argue that he actually does care about the economy - he just has a different opinion on which is the best option to stimulate it.

The answer could include "many" if it was phrased like this: if you have many crimes, then you have some (=at least one) laws to break.

But E is wrong because a society that has many crimes could just have one law. Maybe people are just breaking one law many times. Or maybe there are only a few laws, not many. Many crimes does not allow us to conclude definitively that we have many laws.

Answer is D because if you have some crimes, that implies that you have at least some laws (some = at least one).

Pamela argues that the long hours of physician training is unsustainable.

Quincy argues that it has worked well in the past, so there is no need to change it.

B gives us a reason to believe that there IS a good reason to change the status quo, because the situation has fundamentally changed from the past. Keeping physicians up for long hours was acceptable then, but now that patients are more ill, then maybe outcomes will be drastically worse if the problem of overworked physicians is not solved.

C suggests that the current situation where physicians work for up to 36 hours straight is still compatible with this standard of continuous 24 hour care since it fits well within that window. This also doesn't touch Quincy's objection at all - why should something that has worked in the past be changed?

Chose B because I thought that if most of the seals were attached to documents that have since been destroyed, that suggests that there were many more documents stamped per seal that we don't know about.

But I guess as JY said, it doesn't matter what the modifier after "document" is. Maybe all the researchers knew about the different documents, and the documents were destroyed in modern times.

#9 - I chose D, the tadpoles' carnivorousness calls into question the inclusive fitness theory. I thought that the fact that the tadpoles sometimes eat each other initially causes a problem for the inclusive fitness theory, which states that natural selection benefits organisms that help their relatives.

I'm guessing this is wrong mostly because, yes, the tadpoles sometimes eat their siblings, but the fact that these tadpoles DO have some form of kin recognition suggests that they try not to eat each other when possible. So ultimately, the tadpoles' discriminatory, selective cannibalism does not significantly conflict with the inclusive fitness theory.

Another reason why D is wrong: it's not necessarily the carnivorousness that poses a problem for this theory, it's the sibling cannibalism.

#help can anyone give feedback on this thought process?

(A) - The existence of another method of character evidence doesn't affect Gregory's assertion that a licensing board would remedy the situation

(B) - The expertise of handwriting analysts does not weaken Gregory's argument that a board is needed, and it runs contrary to Sasha's general point of view that handwriting analysis should be banned in court

(C) - Does not weaken Gregory's argument that a board would still weed out the irresponsible analysts making exaggerated claims in an effective manner, even if some responsible analysts are weeded out too. Also runs contrary to Sasha's general point of view; she is not advocating for the good handwriting analysts, she's saying they should be banned in court

(D) - Consistent with Sasha's point of view, and as "the only" introduces a sufficient condition:

analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person's character ---> irresponsible,

meaning that all analysts who claim that handwriting analysis is "a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment" are irresponsible, and all would need to be deterred, leaving no possible licensed practitioners

(E) - Doesn't exclude the possibility that a few very well qualified handwriting analysts could reliably provide character evidence in court.