melmoththewanderer wrote:So I wanted to ask about PT39-S2-Q6 and PT39-S2-Q16.
For 6, why is A incorrect? For letter D, I looked up mundane and it means uninteresting, which doesn't include complexity in its scope. Also, the stimulus is limited only to mundane ideas... we have no idea what this author thinks of interesting ideas, so how can we defend D?
For (A), the author never makes an absolute statement about complexity and better writing. He makes a relative statement about overly pretentious writing to convey simple/mundane ideas. So we can't pick (A) because we don't know that simpler writing is always better - just when it matches the mundane ideas being expressed.
"Mundane" includes a level of simplicity in the definition. Also, people read (D) to be a pretty strong statement, but it's not, really. It's saying that writing shouldn't be more complex than the ideas expressed. It doesn't say "as complex" or "not complex". Instead, it's creating a relative limit. So when the author here concludes with a statement about writing not being more complex than the ideas expressed, he's just saying that even if we have interesting ideas, the writing shouldn't be more complex than those ideas. It can be as complex, or less complex.
For 16, I whittled it down to C and D. I thought the definition of assumption is that it is unstated. But here, it is right there, in black and white. So how could that be an assumption? Also why isn't it C?
The definition of an assumption is something that is taken for granted as true. When I have just a single person speaking, then an assumption has to be unstated. However, once I get multiple viewpoints, the assumption of one argument can be stated by the speaker of the other argument. Here, we have the author and the biologists. The author points out the baseline belief of biologists, but it only states that "biologists agree" that frogs are related to these fish. That's not the same as saying that the frogs are related to these fish (we'd need the author to say something like, "Biologists have proven that..."). The biologists are taking it as true for their argument, but we have no proof that it's true, so we can classify it as an assumption.
(C) is out because no one makes the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths. Stevens-Hoyt makes the claim about lungfish, and Grover makes the claim about coelacanths, but no one ever comes in to say that it must be one of these two. For all we know, there could be scientists out there who think that it's a completely different fish.