- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Premises: The only purpose of this disclaimer is to provide legal protection. However, if this company suggest its clients to do illegal things then this disclaimer offer no legal protection.
Conclusion: So this disclaimer serves no purpose.
This conclusion is basically saying that suggesting its clients to do illegal things is the only situation for this disclaimer being void. But who says that? This is the gap we need to fill in. AC A makes this conclusion solid.
Besides the false dichotomy, C is wrong also because there's no chance for any restaurant could satisfy J,K and M. And they want to go out for dinner TOGETHER. But in the argument, there's still chances for those diseases to kill those species all at once. And in AC B, since we don't know what these two people exactly can do, so there's still chance for them to fix the problem without any outside help.
I chose B because I mistakenly thought it expressed"usually change"as "can change".
I couldn't understand this question after several times of reading. I thought these are three independent sentences cause I couldn't see the relationship between them. I couldn't see the different expressions are actually the same thing. 🙁
I think the first sentence does work as a notice but it's context not a premise.
I chose B because I was trying to find "the other reasons". However, this argument never said cars without air bags are safer because of lacking of air bags.
#help
So can we say the context here is completely useless? Can we ignore this part of the argument?
15 A, I think A is also assuming something. It assumes the "unusual". The passage only says they have high speciation not how unusual the rate is. The reason why A is wrong is because Sander didn't assume this.
Why they used : in paragraph 2...? That's not how I use this punctuation...
#13 For answer C, I don't think the "proposal" should be considered as a reference to the book itself but the innovative view Haraway expressed in her book. Because in line 21, it actually used the word "proposed". The rest part of paragraph 2 is about the "content of the proposal".
And the first sentence for paragraph 3, it shows in this paragraph it gonna talk about "the style of the proposal".
Because Haraway stated she thought the old view was not viable(in paragraph 2), and she "proposed" a new approach. This could be considered as a "reform".
Hope this wont be too late. But here's how I would think about it.
First, you have to know what answer C is giving: a historical fact, a question, two answers.
Then, down to the passage, I think the historical fact, is the French settlers discovery (paragraph 1) or the location she found in paragraph 2. Ok, now we got the historical fact. A question, i think it refers to the question Vernon was focusing on, mentioned in paragraph 2. And then it said, Vernon gave us 2 intriguing answers, separated by the timeline, before and after the end of the slavery. The rest part of paragraph 2 is about the first answer, and paragraph 3 and 4 are about the second answer. Dingdingding! We verified all the components of answer C.
Now let's talk about answer B you are having problem with.
First, historical discovery. Yes, the same French settlers discovery or the location in paragraph 2. The method, hmm, looking up document or interviewing the elderly African Americans? But the last thing, 2 questions unanswered? She answered. And the author actually using the word "answers".
Hope this could help. If you find me wrong, feel free to reply:)
#12 could be handled easily if you put your attention on the word "proof". It's not introducing anything or helping anything. It just reflects things already there.
Is the critic aiming at obstacle 1? Or at the whole solution? I think the solution doesn't necessary include write things down. Because of this, I made question 12 wrong. #help (Added by Admin)
So here is the sentence:
All men and women are merely players.
I know it should translate as: men and women➡️ merely players.
And the contrapositive should be: /MP ➡️/men or /women.
But why it shouldn't be translated separately? In this sentence, "men and women" is not some kind of combination, I think they are separate conditions. You don't need to be men and women at the same time to be merely players. Just being men or women can activate the sufficient condition. I mean the "and"here, is actually an exclusive OR.
So I think it should diagram as: men or women ➡️ merely players.
And the contrapositive should be: /MP ➡️/men and /women.
If you find me made any silly mistake, please point it out. I am really confused right now. Thanks in advance!
I think it's because the answer doesn't mention their response to the light. Maybe before the test, they are already accustomed to the light but they do nothing to response the light. But after the test, they are tensing their foot to response like they think the light equals to the turbulence.
The point is generally in Waller's conclusion. Generally be accepted means being accepted by most of people but not everyone.
#help
I don't get it.. How come the last paragraph related to the other paragraphs?
When you find a 4 stars passage and you got them all right and you are very happy about this, then you heard JY said this is a very easy passage and you should got them all right.
I couldn't figure this q out because I forgot "either or" could be both.