Thanks in advance!#13:
Why not (B) and why (E)? I realize lines 32-35 reference the the problem mentioned in (E), but how are we to know that people even considered using massively parallel computers to begin with? Thanks
#19:
Isn't (C) almost contradicted by the passage rather than supported by it? Lines 28-34 talk about RETAINING the right to copy the object for profit - not about transferring that right. I did pick (C) after POE but I cannot find direct support at all (and in the worst case, I find it to be contradicted). Or does the very fact that the right to copy the object for profit is given as an example of a right "typically retained," imply that sometimes it is not retained and therefore is transferred? And is (A) wrong because it says "most" when all we know about is "some" (i.e. the example given relating the 'the seller of a piece of land')?
#20:
I don't get why it's (D) - doesn't the author's poetry example contradict (D)? Because it was the friend (not the poet) who was the work's creator, and so presupposing that this friend originally owns the ideas embodied in that work would not at all be adequate theoretical justification of copyright in the author's mind, right? wouldn't the author think that that would totally gip the poet and give undue acknowledgment and rights to the friend?
or is this reasoning of mine presupposing the truth of the tangible-object theory? that is, is (D) actually just creating a new theory and explaining in plain English that he who is to be considered the work's creator must originally own the ideas embodied in that work (that for someone to be the creator of a work, they must originally own the ideas embodied in that work)? if so, how was I to know to read the answer choice that way?! ugh.
#23:
I know lines 6-8 explicitly state "We prefer some sort of coherence, a principle that connects the various sounds and makes them comprehensible." and for that reason it's clear to see how (B) works here. HOWEVER, earlier in that first paragraph, the author talks about how we need intricacy and complexity to excite our curiosity and that these thinks have a positive effect on the listener - so inferably, we should prefer these characteristics as well. But (B) talks about "movies with plots that are clear and easy to follow" which does not suggest any measure of complexity or intricacy to me. So how does (B) still work in that light?
#25:
The explanation provided in Passage A for the relaxing effect that some music has on listeners is that in a natural environment, danger tends to be accompanied by sudden, unexpected sounds and so noise of the opposite nature (continuous sounds judged to be safe) suggest peaceful conditions. I see how (C) undermines this explanation by bringing in an example of precisely that type of noise (steady and rhythmic sound from a source that is clearly judged to be safe) that, based on the explanation, one would expect to be relaxing but that is instead unnerving. BUT, I also see (D) as undermining Passage A's explanation as well. If the sudden interruption of the expected development of a melody (which would presumably produce sudden, unexpected sounds) tends to interfere with listeners' perception of the melody as coherent, then THAT is the reason that we feel that sudden, unexpected sounds are not relaxing...the interruption of the expected dev't of a melody rather than the original explanation that it is our ideas about danger in the natural environment. I feel like (D) more directly weakens the argument, no?
Thanks!!
