This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Here we have a most strongly supported question: The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following conclusions?

The first thing the stimulus tells us is that there is a growing discrepancy between the punishments for famous and unknown defendants convicted of the same crime, where the famous person gets off with community service while the unknown person almost always gets real prison time. So your average Joe gets 5 years in prison for his DUI, but the new famous singer gets a couple months picking up trash; seems pretty unfair! The stimulus ends by reminding us that the principle of equality before the law demands that fame and publicity are put to the side when deciding a case. So the law is supposed to consider the crime itself and not whether the person who committed it is a celebrity. And that’s all we learn! We’re looking for a conclusion that would be a good fit for these premises; it will follow without us having to make any unreasonable assumptions. Let’s see what we get:

Answer Choice (A) We have reason to believe it is not being applied in some cases, but to say it is only being applied in a few cases requires a wild assumption; namely that just because this one subset of cases (cases with famous defendants) seems to be increasingly breaking the principle, that most cases are breaking it! We unfortunately just don’t know anything about cases other than these well-publicized trials; we always want to avoid concluding about things we haven’t been told anything about on MSS questions.

Answer Choice (B) Although their fame should not affect the decision concerning their punishment, that doesn’t mean there needs to be the same outcome as people without fame. Maybe celebrities tend to commit worse crimes so they should be getting more prison time even if we treat them the same as non-celebrities (i.e. judge their crimes rather than their fame).

Answer Choice (C) We have been given no information about any principles that can override it.

Correct Answer Choice (D) The growing variance in punishments for similar crimes suggests that in some cases celebrities are getting special treatment, which would break the principle of equality.

Answer Choice (E) Treating everyone equally doesn’t mean you can never be lenient depending on the case. It does mean that you can’t be lenient just because someone is famous, but we haven’t been told about anything else the principle rules out. To draw this conclusion requires we assume that the principle exclude any other possible reason for leniency; that’s a big assumption.


2 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

7 comments

This is a resolve reconcile explain question, indicated by the stem asking: Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the restorer’s decision with goal stated in the passage?

The stimulus tells us that the great Renaissance painter Michelangelo’s paintings in the Sistine Chapel are being restored. Awesome, who doesn’t love Michelangelo! The purpose of the restoration is to uncover the Sistine Chapel as Michelangelo originally painted it, and part of this process is removing later artists’ additions. Strangely however, the restorers have decided to leave one addition alone: that of da Volterra. We’re looking for an answer that will explain the restorers’ decision in a way that is compatible with their overall purpose of uncovering Michelangelo’s work.

Correct Answer Choice (A) Well if he stripped away all the paint then there is no Michelangelo below his addition, and therefore no benefit of removing his addition for the restorers. Their decision makes sense now!

Answer Choice (B) Cool fact but this doesn’t give us any reasons why the restorers wouldn’t remove his addition.

Answer Choice (C) I guess it might fit in more but the purpose of the restorers was to uncover Michelangelo’s original work; whether additions are stylistically similar shouldn’t affect whether they are kept in.

Answer Choice (D) The relative ranking of the different subsets of Michelangelo and Volterra’s art would have no impact on the restorers’ project. They want to uncover originals and seem to have no problem removing additions, except for Volterra’s.

Answer Choice (E) And yet the stimulus tells us they removed those other artists. That’s exactly the kind of discrepancy we want an explanation for!


1 comment

We know this is a resolve reconcile explain question, because it asks: Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the agricultural peoples of western Asia never returned to hunting and gathering?

The stimulus begins with some context; ten thousand years ago many of the communities in Western Asia switched from hunting and gathering to agriculture. Interestingly, this lead to poor diets and health issues, yet the people never returned to hunting and gathering. Our job is to explain why the communities stuck with agriculture when all we know so far is that it made their lives worse. A good answer choice will give a reason for their committal to agriculture that is compatible with the health effects mentioned in the stimulus. On to the answers:

Answer Choice (A) This doesn’t explain their committal to agriculture, it actually just makes the situation stranger by explicitly stating hunting and gathering food was still an option.
Answer Choice (B) Interesting! But this feature of both food methods doesn’t explain the committal to one over the other.

Correct Answer Choice (C) Here we go, this gives us a reason why hunting and gathering food just wasn’t going to cut it anymore, even if agriculture had negative trade offs. If one option isn’t going to work anymore, then sticking to the other makes sense.

Answer Choice (D) This tells us the phenomenon was widespread, but doesn’t provide an explanation for why it occurred in the first place.

Answer Choice (E) This just seems like another downside to agriculture, which makes the committal of the communities even less intelligible.


Comment on this