Test your knowledge with AI-generated multiple choice questions
The passage identifies multiple sources and incomplete filtration, so it does not suggest that regulating laundry alone would solve the problem, making E the EXCEPT. A, B, C, and D are each directly or indirectly supported.
Counting citations mirrors counting passed inspections, both compliance metrics that can rise without improving the real-world outcome, matching D. A, B, C, and E track outcomes or mix metrics in ways not analogous.
Because materials and total time were held constant, the observed difference is most plausibly due to scheduling, supporting C. A and B contradict controls, and D and E contradict the data.
The court rejected the broad interpretation yet allowed for a significant nexus analysis on remand, which is C. A, B, D, and E are not supported by the description.
If anything marks a cautious leaning, suggesting a modest effect rather than a strong claim, which is C. A overstates, B and D mischaracterize tone, and E introduces content not provided.
Exclusive rewards raise switching costs and reduce effective multi-homing, making dominance more likely and weakening the columnist's claim. A and B support the multi-homing premise, D is irrelevant, and E is compatible with consolidation.
Direct comparative evidence of fewer outage-hours strengthens the reliability claim, making A best. B and D note costs or challenges, C is about urban areas, and E restates a design feature without showing improved outcomes.
The passage sets up an apparent contradiction and then accounts for it by identifying overlooked variables, matching D. A, B, and C misstate the organizational pattern, and E is not claimed.
The author sees promise but stresses caution and evaluation, indicating guarded optimism. A is too strong, C too negative, and D and E mischaracterize the engaged, evaluative tone.
Passage A emphasizes mating; Passage B acknowledges mating as one function while adding others, so both accept some mating role, matching C. A and E contradict A, B goes beyond A's commitment, and D overstates B's cautionary stance.
Marginal in economics refers to the next unit or incremental change, so C fits. B and D confuse magnitude with the concept, while A and E suggest relevance rather than the unit-by-unit idea.
By presenting a failed implementation, the second paragraph limits and refines the initial claim, matching C. A and B misdescribe its content, D overstates, and E is off-topic.
The author endorses trying double-blind review due to low cost and fairness benefits despite mixed evidence, aligning with A. B and E are too sweeping, C overclaims effectiveness, and D contradicts the stated value of perceived fairness.
The author urges reassessment of an existing model in light of new dating, which is exactly C. A and E misstate the aim, B overgeneralizes about methods, and D alleges misconduct not implied.
The author supports green roofs but argues their citywide effectiveness hinges on equitable, widespread implementation via policy, matching B. Choices A, C, D, and E overstate, misattribute causation, or suggest policy elements the author does not endorse alone.
Both practices limit tenure to prevent entrenched influence and promote diversity of perspectives, making A analogous. B, D, and E do not address rotating authority, and C is the opposite by concentrating control.
The critique targets the objective function itself, emphasizing that optimization goals embody value judgments, so B captures the principle. A concerns training data rather than objective choice, and C, D, and E misstate or trivialize the normative point.
Ledgers record intended or issued rations, not necessarily what was consumed; spoilage, barter, or pilfering could distort the picture, so A is the key limitation. B, C, D, and E are irrelevant to the accuracy of dietary reconstruction.
The passage states that shape changes with sun exposure even within lineages and that convergence occurs across lineages, so variability cutting across evolutionary lines is a reason to abandon the scheme; A matches. B, C, D, and E are unsupported or irrelevant.
If controlling for SES and parental education erases the difference, the causal link to bilingual education is undermined, making B the strongest weakening evidence. A raises heterogeneity but not causality, C and E are tangential, and D suggests a confound but less directly than B.
If travel and childcare were major barriers pre-pandemic, reducing them via remote appearances directly supports improved access, so B strengthens the claim. A is neutral, C and D address quality or costs, and E would undermine access rather than strengthen it.
The passage identifies a phenomenon, weighs two explanations and finds them lacking, then proposes a new explanation, matching A. Options B, C, D, and E misstate the structure or content.
B disputes assisted migration’s wisdom and proposes habitat corridors, thus challenging A’s recommendation and offering an alternative; A is correct. The other options either claim support, introduce unrelated disputes, or suggest confirmation not present.
Passage A affirms that assemblies confer legitimacy, while Passage B denies their effectiveness and redirects legitimacy to elected bodies, so A states the dispute. B is not contested, C is a straw man, D is acknowledged by both, and E is raised only by B.
The passage distinguishes Dewey’s pragmatism from expediency and focuses it on consequences for lived experience, aligning with B. A, C, D, and E mischaracterize the term or add motives not suggested.
The LED example shows how cost reductions spur more use, embodying the rebound effect, so B is correct. A is extreme, C and D introduce claims not in the passage, and E introduces a comparison that is not made.
The author notes some legibility benefits but stresses consolidation and extraction harms, indicating tempered skepticism; C fits. A is too positive, B imputes inevitability not expressed, D ignores attention to litigants, and E mischaracterizes the focus.
The passage emphasizes replication and code testing by independent researchers as the key benefit, so B follows. A is an overstatement, C is not supported, D misidentifies the main benefit, and E conflicts with the call for broader scrutiny.
The author warns that canopy percentage is an inadequate proxy for cooling and that finer factors should guide policy, matching B. A overstates by declaring programs a waste, C and D introduce claims not made, and E contradicts the passage’s use of studies.
The passage presents newly found letters as evidence that counters the naïve-romantic view of Luro, directly challenging a prevailing characterization; thus B is correct. A overgeneralizes about all art, C misstates the endorsement, and D and E address topics not discussed.
The passage acknowledges risks but argues for using algorithms with transparency and participatory review, so B captures the purpose. A is too extreme; the author rejects a ban. C misstates the focus; no technical architecture is described. D is contradicted, as bias is acknowledged. E is the opposite of the recommendation that auditing be used.
Learn from tutors who’ve scored a perfect 180.
Work with top scorers who explain patterns, not just answers—so you can raise your score with confidence.
