I had a hard time deciding between A and B. The passage states "prolonged starvation" and "protection against oxidative stress". Prolonged starvation meant beta oxidation and oxidative stress protection meant PPP. How am I supposed to decide between the two?
I have not learned from Pankow when something is considered ethical vs unethical. I understand these questions can be answered by process of elimination, however, I want to know how to arrive at the answer right away without process of elimination. Everyone's ethical boundary are different, so where do you draw the line for ethical reasons?
I want to format my AAMC page so the question and explanation is on the right. My fingers hurts from scrolling so much. Is there a way to format it like how other people have screenshotted their questions? 2nd image is what I am seeing.
How were we supposed to know the answer is B? Apparently the brain uses Glut1 and Glut3. We were only taught Glut2 and Glut4 in kaplan. Was this answer only achievable through process of elimination?
The question applies to 4th and 5th paragraph. I can see how A could be right, but wouldn't C be more correct? Allen's rule is when it is hot, body parts get longer. However, the upper extremities got longer while the lower extremities got shorter. So Allen's rule is wrong. If we extend Allen's rule so only upper extremities get longer, it does not explain why the lower extremities is short. So wouldn't C be overall more correct? In passages like this where both answers can be technically correct, how would I know which to choose? I know you choose the "more" correct one between the two but for A it feels like you got to jumps through hoops of logic to arrive at that conclusion. Thank you for any help or cars tips!
