Subscription pricing
Totally dropped the ball on both of these. Help?
For Q4: I thought D was totally wrong and I was completely sure of it because I thought to myself, "How could we possibly know what's in the best interest for the military?" I fell for answers A, C (second choice).
For Q21: I had no idea that "some" came into the mix; totally out of left field.I picked A even though I knew it made no sense. It just made the most sense.
0
3 comments
@chenoabailey93611 said:
@chenoabailey93611 this was so helpful!! I didn't translate correctly!
Happy to have helped!!
@chenoabailey93611 this was so helpful!! I didn't translate correctly!
Hey there!
PT1.S3.Q04
The crux of the argument is in the last sentence and its gist is as follows: for a country seeking military deterrence, an aggressor would have to believe that the country it wishes to attack maintains a greater retaliatory force. The entire argument hinges on the word, "believe". The stimulus, in its hypothetical, has outlined a nation that (a) wants to deter enemies and (b) must instill a (perceived) belief of superior military prowess within its aggressor. In this sense, for such a nation, (D) can be reasonably inferred from the stimulus - that is, it would be "in the interests of a nation" seeking deterrence, to instill a belief of prowess within its enemies by letting "potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack".
(A) is strong. "Certain knowledge" is not necessary. Only a belief.
(C) confuses sufficiency and necessity. Recall, the last sentence (which is a paraphrasing of the first), states that a perceived belief of military superiority is sufficient to maintain deterrence. AC (C) says that if a nation does not attack (i.e., an attack is deterred), then it was because of a belief of the opponents military superiority.
PT1.S4.Q21
Remember, this is a must be true question. Again, a MUST be true question. The correct AC must absolutely, under all circumstances, be true.
The gist of the stimulus states that if a society has crimes, it cannot be lawless. It arrives at this conclusions through a series of reasoning patterns. First, it states that if a society is considered to be law"less" (LL), then that would imply that it is without laws (/L). And if a city is without laws, it cannot have crimes (/C).
In lawgic that's: LL -> /L -> /C
If you take the contraspositive of the above, you arrive at the conclusion that a city with crimes, cannot be lawless.
Now, scan through the ACs:
(A) L -> C? Nope
(B) /C -> /L? Nope.
(C) many laws -> many crimes? not too different from (A). Nope.
(D) some laws -> some crimes? Can be true! "Some" is vague and implies "at least 1" and can absolutely be true, under all circumstances.
(E) many laws -> many crimes? too strong. you can have a few laws and many crimes.
Hope this helped!