many of the props Vermeer used were expensive, therefore, it's not due to having a lack of props. E- explains if it were due to a lack of props, then we wouldn't see expensive props (connecting premise to conclusion). D- is trying to trap you and have you make an unwarranted assumption that a sentimental value is the reason why he uses them. But devil's advocate: what if sentimental props were so personal to him that he didn't want to expose that vulnerability in his paintings (now you're making another assumption). We don't really care why he uses the small number of props, we just know it's not due to a lack of props because the props were expensive. We want to connect the premise to the conclusion.
Thank you all so much for the responses and feedback. I really appreciate it and love the 7sage community; wish I had found this resource right away when I started this journey!
Hi guys,
I joined 7Sage in June but was with Kaplan for about a year. I’ve taken practice tests 36-66 already. I just finished the core curriculum and I’m not sure which timed PTs I should take. My test is in Nov and I’m worried if I take 67+ PT that I’ll run out of tests way before my actual tests. Should I just retake 36-66 and then continue on with 67+ or should I just start focusing on 67+? Please help!
A is wrong for two reasons. 1. it's not the overall main point; we're not concerned that people are mistaken, we're concerned about whether eating chocolate causes acne and 2. A states that people are mistaken when they say eating chocolate causes acne while the passage says that it is likely that eating chocolate doesn't cause acne but that stress causes eating chocolate and acne. A is stating that the author is saying people are wrong, while the author is actually saying that it is likely that they're wrong.