When my internet cuts out momentarily and is working to reconnect, the timer continues to count down despite the rest of the page being unusable (so I can't pause the timer manually). Is possible to program the timer to pause automatically when there are connection issues that interfere with the rest of the page?
Thank you for all your hard work!!
Many schools (including T6) have Older Wiser Law Students (OWLS) clubs for students 30+/with more life experience -- and someone's gotta be in the club:) maybe you can find contact info for a club at a school your interested in to see if any of the students would be willing to chat about their experience!
@bappel From my understanding, (E) is saying:
Old survey: animals
New survey: animals + plants
I interpreted "inventory" to be a "count/assessment" rather an appendix, but even if it's an appendix, it is part of the total of the survey, which counts all wildlife.
Keep in mind that "wildlife" as a term includes both plants and animals. So if the new survey counts plants, the plants are not viewed separately from animals since the metric is "wildlife" in total.
Then, we can see that the metric of "wildlife" has changed to be more inclusive/generous, so then it's possible to explain the increase in survey results as due to the survey being more generous in its def of wildlife than due to an actual growth in wildlife.
I understand (E), but I'm not convinced (C) is wrong.
I interpreted (C) as:
assumes that because a certain action [criminal action] has a certain result [violating the law] the person taking that action intended that result
The stimulus assumes that criminals have poor personal ethics. But what if they violated a law that they didn't know about? Then it's harder to connect the crime to poor personal ethics. We might attribute their actions to ignorance instead. If we do this, the stimulus's assumption that crime -> poor ethics falls apart.
@SimonArmendariz Gah! Thank you for distilling it! That makes total sense!
I understand how (A) breaks the positive correlation (@kwangleestuff519 wrote a nice explanation of it), but I'm still not 100% on (C).
I guess my question is, if we know there's a positive correlation only for one subset (hereditarily predisposed + drinks caffeine), can we conclude there's a positive correlation for the entire superset (everyone who drinks caffeine)?
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding (C) entirely?
I struggled to identify what a "noneconomic constraint" was, as the negation in "no noneconomic constraints impinge upon the economy" confused me.
But now I see that:
Neoclassists purport that noneconomic constraints don't exist/don't affect the economy -- ie, the economy is an independent bubble
Steady-staters believe that the economy is not an independent bubble. Rather, the environment plays a role. What is an example of a "noneconomic constraint" affecting the economy due to the env's role? Waste absorption. Yippee
Altho I understood the meaning of "underscore the fervor," it didn't lend itself easily to my understanding of "mystique" (mysterious).
So I just used process of elimination:
(B) - eliminate bc no discussion of empirical (data-based) research
(C) - I deliberated on this one for a while, but it didn't sit well with me. I think bc (C) implies that the author is expressing appreciation for ecosystems, but the author is really just describing the theorists
(D) - eliminate bc the reformers' ideas are not described as particularly theoretical or hard to understand
(E) - eliminate bc we don't know how widespread the support is, just that it exists
And then (A) - yeah, keep, I guess. It made more sense in the context of the sentence/passage than (C). (A) also aligns with the strength of the words "taboo" and "adored"
@SavanaTipton I was quite stuck between A and C too! There was my internal debate in two parts:
Part 1 - example vs analogy
Example is just one instance of something.
Analogy requires a comparison between two parts. At first I thought to myself, "Oh, there are two parts here," but I think that in analogies, it's often two parallel examples (specific instances) and then drawing a conclusion from one example to determine the conclusion from the other example.
Part 2 - principle vs conclusion
My understanding of the diff bw principle and conclusion might be less than accurate, but the general idea in my head is that "principles are general, abstract ideas," not specific instances. Whereas, I think conclusions can be about more specific instances.
Lastly, we know what (A: general principle + example) looks like from the stimulus. Based on what I wrote above, here's a bad example of what (C: analogy + conclusion) could be:
Customer A who can choose between 50 varieties of cola is less free than Customer B who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk, and water.
Similarly, Student A who can choose between 10 different math classes is less free than Student B who can choose between algebra, history, and sculpture. general principle by means of an example. [Second specific example]
Since we can clearly see that Student A is less free than Student B, we can see that Customer A is less free than Customer B. [Specific conclusion, not general principle]
I hope some of that rambling makes sense.. Thank you for asking the question -- I, at least, feel better about this question having had the chance to write out my thinking!
@JoyelleBaek Ohh good catch on the contrapositive for option 2. The tutors have mentioned that (D) isn't valid logic, so I wonder if we can't take the contrapositive bc of the "most" involved? I'll have to noodle that one more.
Anyway, of course!! Good luck w your studying!!
@JoyelleBaek I thought the same as you at first... Here's what I'm thinking now (as I still try to straighten it out in my brain):
Option 1:
I think one way to reevaluate the question is to rephrase the stimulus to create a binary of "0 harm" vs "any harm" (since it says "no harm at all").
So, we'd need to say:
good -> /(any harm)
wealth -> any harm
C: wealth -> /good
That matches (A) and not (D).
Option 2:
Or, if we keep your stimulus as it was, with a closer look, we can see a difference between the stimulus and (D):
good -> /harm
wealth -m-> harm
C: wealth -> /good
S' dog -> hunt well
dach -m-> /hunt well
C: S' dog -> /dach
If we bold the first part of each "most" statement, we can see that (D) doesn't actually map onto the stimulus (even tho at first glance it looks like they would)
Dang... the difference between "two opponents of a certain viewpoint" and "proponents of two opposing viewpoints" got me for (B). Didn't read that closely enough
Ah... chose (b) and didn't even read (e), but now I can see why (b) is wrong:
I kind of focused on the interviewer's last question, which asks how we know new mps won't be "similarly flawed." I hadn't realized that they were only talking about design flaws (the interviewer determines this in their first statement). So I thought all mp flaws were on the table, which (B) lended itself nicely to.
Thinking about B:
Thought 1 -- mostly resolved: My thought process was that the 6mo+ group would have a larger pool of respondents and therefore more individuals who might respond positively. I guess I ignored that a larger pool of respondents would also mean more individuals who might respond negatively?
Thought 2 -- still confused: Whenever I see situations where people opt-in to respond, I know that there will be bias.
I see the bias as: people might 1) have a vendetta against the treatment or 2) might want to praise what a good experience they had. Given the results, we could think to ourselves "oh, these respondents only answered bc they had a good experience but that doesn't mean they are representative of all participants."
I still don't see why it's not an issue -- or maybe it is an issue but just not as big an issue as (C)?
Please let me know if you have any thoughts...
When I first looked at this question, I chose (A) while thinking that (B) was too simple. In hindsight, I can see how (B) matches the stimulus spot-on while (A) flips it. For a principle question, we want something that overlays/matches nicely, doesn't flip. Here is my thought process, broken down:
Stimulus:
Biologist:
Researchers believe that dogs are the descendants of domesticated wolves that were bred to be better companions for humans.(not relevant to principle)It has recently been found that some breeds of dog are much more closely related genetically to wolves than to most other breeds of dog. --> I shorten this premise to "genetic closeness"
This shows that some dogs are descended from wolves that were domesticated much more recently than others. --> shorten to "recently desc wolf"
So, the stimulus, in short, is genetic closeness --> recently desc wolf
A:
If one breed of dog is descended from wolves that were domesticated more recently than were the wolves from which most other breeds of dog are descended [recently desc wolf],
the former breed may be more closely related to wolves than those other breeds are [genetic closeness].
So A, in short, is recently desc wolf --> genetic closeness. This is has the correct components but opposite direct of the argument from the stimulus.
B:
If one breed of dog is more closely related to wolves than to another breed of dog [recently desc wolf],
then the former breed of dog has more recent undomesticated wolf ancestors than the latter breed has [genetic closeness].
So B, in short, is genetic closeness --> recently desc wolf -- yay match!
I think I got too caught in the weeds of trying to understand (A) -- I found the phrasing a little complicated -- that by the time I understood it, it sounded similar enough to the stimulus. And then by the time I read (B), it sounded too simple, like easy bait.
I was able to eliminate (E) because I thought: two people cooperating =/=> belong distinct groups (i.e., the two people may cooperate and belong to the same group). For instance, if two public officials cooperate that doesn't mean that suddenly one of them loses their status. They are both still public officials.
So if we accept the economist's argument: Let's say Person A, a business exec/public official, cooperates with Person B, a public official. There's no reason we have to say that Person A is no longer a public official since it's possible that officials cooperate with each other (we have no reason to believe that public officials don't cooperate with each other).
So, (E) doesn't weaken the economist's argument because if (E) is true, we can still accept the business exec's additional identity as a public official. Since public officials can work together
I went through a similar sudden dip, and I just want to encourage you to trust yourself and your hard work! A dip like that can be a huge demotivator/destabilizer, so I want to reassure you that all your hours of studying are valuable and are still in that noggin of yours.
Maybe try taking a few days away from PT151, do some other studying, and I like the other commentor's suggestion of rubber ducky-ing it when you come back to it.
Don't let this little practice test shake you. Learn from it, grow from it, and trust yourself. Good luck in June!