weathercoins wrote:For Sec 3 #26, is the reason the answer is not C because the word "fundamental" is too strong?
"Fundamental" is a strong word that should give you pause, especially when there's nothing in the stimulus that matches up.
Additionally, I don't know that there was any agreement on economic matters - just that this didn't cause an inordinate amount of tension.
E much better lines up with the stimulus because it talks about the tension mentioned in the stimulus, instead of agreements that I don't have (it mentions negotiations, but that's a precursor to, not the same as, an agreement).
Also, if you have time later to review Sec 2 #20, 18
Here, we learn that we morally socialize children by making them feel shame.
However, this shame results in guilt and self-loathing.
Therefore, moral socializing has a net increase on the amount of suffering.
So let's see what I have going on here. I know that morally socializing children does lead to suffering - guilt and self-loathing are not pleasant feelings, so I will suffer more in that regard. However, do I talk about any of the benefits of this moral socialization? I know that it will make me feel guilty, but might it also help me fit in to society? Without moral socializing, maybe I'll end up a sociopath - someone who doesn't feel guilt or self-loathing all the way to the electric chair. That seems worse than a little bit of Catholic guilt.
Whenever I have a conclusion that says the net effect of something goes in one direction, make sure the stimulus balances each side. Here, we don't. I know that moral socialization leads to some amount of suffering, but it never tells me that there's no upside to it, or that the upside is outweighed by this guilt. Without saying that, it's completely possible that moral socialization has more benefits than negatives.
That's answer D - moral socialization sometimes leads to a certain phenomenon (suffering in the form of guilt/self-loathing), but it might also overall cause you to suffer less in life (since you can relate to other people and obey the law).
Alright, a sufficient assumption question. I'm trying to get to the conclusion that "health education" isn't education at all; rather, it's propaganda (abstinence only, anyone?).
Then there's a whole lot of info, but the important things are the definitions of propaganda and education
Propaganda is "nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans."
Education "never involves [the repetition of simplistic slogans]" and "offer[s] up information in all its complexity."
I don't care which is more successful, I just want to get "health education" to be propaganda. To do that, I need to say that it meets the definition of propaganda.
D does that - if "health education" "attempts to influence behavior solely" with slogans, then it is propaganda.
Now, normally, just meeting a definition of something doesn't guarantee that it is that thing. However, in this case, we're told that propaganda is "nothing but" these catchy slogans. D tells us that "health education" is teaching "solely" by repeating slogans. While normally there might be other information that would separate something that met the definition of a phenomenon from being called that phenomenon, here the "solely" and "nothing but" tell us that "health education" must be propaganda, because that's all both are. If there's nothing other than the conveyance of information through repetitive slogans to both, then "health education" must fall under the umbrella of propaganda.
and Sec 1 #22 and #26, would be so helpful. Thanks!
Main point question
For me, there are really only two possible ACs - A and D.
A is close to the last few lines of the first paragraph, which at the time looks like a main point. However, as the author goes on, we get descriptions of certain IP regimes, and the faculty-oriented one of the fourth paragraph is "free from these particular issues." We need to capture that attitude in the answer.
And that's D. It's balanced, descriptive, with a slight lean towards the faculty-oriented institutions being free of the worst of the issues.
B doesn't have any attitude as to the desirability of different regimes - it's just saying the four-fold descriptions are enough. While that may be true, it misses the author's view towards the faculty-oriented institutions.
C says institutions need to adopt common-law presumptions, which are similar to, but not the same as, the policies at faculty-oriented institutions (there are caveats to it there).
E says "indefensible", and that's way too strong of a word for almost any RC question. While those policies are questionable, they aren't indefensible - that word would be limited to institutions like slavery, or genocide.
This was all about your tagging. If you knew the first three policies were listed in the second paragraph, you should have quickly found resource-provider institutions in lines 40-45. There, we learn that these institutions assert a claim to the researcher's IP when the university supplies a significant amount of the supplies for the research (even though the university defines "significant"). That's answer choice E. I'm not a huge fan of "sole" in that answer choice, but since the passage is talking about the IP policies, and the policy as described at a resource-provider institution only involves the extent of resources used, I can get over it, especially since the other ACs are not even close to describing the one thing I know about these institutions.