- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
Yeah that was my problem, too. We know that she met the necessary conditions for a temporary nondelivery, but how do we know her request for credit would be granted? Wouldn't we would have to know there aren't replacements available?
Agreed I think there are more assumptions implicit in the "aesthetically pleasing" part.
Hey all,
Last two timed PT results:
Last Week: LR -2 LR -8 LR (EXP) -2 RC -0 -> 167
This Week: RC -6 LR -2 LR -0 LR (EXP) -1 -> 170
Putting a message here to ask if anyone has struggled similarly with consistency in tests across sections. Results like these make it difficult to study because my weaknesses seem to be changing in the wind. Feels like I improve one section and then another one suffers. Glad I brought my score up a few points but it still feels like the goalposts move on me every week. Anyone have thoughts/tips/similar struggles with these kinds of results? Anything appreciated!
My problem with this question is how many assumptions it requires us to make on a test where we are trained to curb our assumptions.
Etiquette does not necessarily oppose expression of offensive ideas, it dictates that situations exist where expression of potentially offensive content is inappropriate, but when appropriate, such expression should be done civilly.
We are told nothing about what constitutes an offensive idea, which situations may make offensive content inappropriate, or what constitutes civil/uncivil behavior.
D is wrong because we are to assume that a news conference is not one of those situations where potentially offensive content is inappropriate. We are to assume that relevant questions at news conferences prevent them from being considered inappropriate. How are we to make that assumption?
E is right because a panel on a given issue is somehow assumed to be an appropriate context for a potentially embarrassing /offensive display of behavior. Sure, it's a small assumption to assume that name-calling is offensive/not civil, but how are we to know enough about the environment of a panel discussion to think this fits the stimulus?
There are just so many assumptions required here of both the stimulus and the answer choices. How are we to navigate those assumptions especially on a test that so seriously drills us into curbing assumptions? No way this is a Difficulty 3.
By only taking GNP into account when measuring a nation's economic health, isn't there an implicit exclusion of all other indicators of economic health? I feel like it's a reasonable assumption that they'd think other measures, like welfare, are irrelevant because they only want to use GNP.
I understand how C is correct because we're not concerned about future cold contractions. But I got caught up by the wording in B and D. Negating B states that there are side effects severe enough to make many people avoid using it. But many is just some, and the argument claims that most people with colds wish to recover quickly and almost everybody with a cold would be using it. In my head the fact that some people could be deterred from using it didn't decimate the argument because the argument doesn't speak in absolutes, it allows some people to not wish to recover quickly and allows for some people to not use it. Same with E. Negating it says that it isn't the case that there aren't effective alternatives that many people might prefer. But many once again means some, which I thought the argument allows for by not speaking in absolutes. Where did I go wrong?
How does "keeping one's skills" imply applicability to adults and not students? "One" is wholly age-neutral. Other than that, (A) is wrong because it introduces regular training as a necessary condition of proficiency?
I struggle with this correct answer choice because so much of our RC training is not to over-assume the strength of authors' claims. In most other RC contexts I don't think viewing something as "unnecessarily narrow" would constitute a dismissal. Ambivalence seems like a more accurate description when there isn't much language of outright rejection.
The logical chain from support to conclusion makes sense to me, but I have a quick question about navigating the conditional relationship indicators that help us get there in this question.
Stimmy says "all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a loss of universal belief in it." In my mind, this is equivalent to saying that a loss of universal belief in money is necessary, in fact the only necessary thing, for money's disappearance, making the relationship disappear -> loss of belief. But after some further thought, if loss of universal belief is the only thing needed to make money disappear, it makes sense that a loss of universal belief is sufficient to conclude that money has disappeared. How would you recommend we navigate tricky language like this? In my mind it could have gone either way.
@Stas1973 I agree. I only got there by process of elimination. Almost eliminated A at the jump because I thought building and refitting were considered in the stimmy when it talked about long-run costs.
I eliminated AC B because I thought that just because most dairy consumers consume less lactose than a liter of milk at each meal, they could still consume an equivalent or greater amount of lactose over the course of their three daily meals/daily intake that would make a liter of milk a comparable amount. Where'd I go wrong?
Is it because the experiment was only testing on lactose intake in a single sitting, making it comparable to a single sitting for a meal?
The correctness of AC E is not computing in my brain. Humans can't get WNV from each other, great. As J.Y. says, what's to say 100 North Americans travelled to Northern Africa in the 1990's, were all bitten by WNV-carrying mosquitos, and then "carried" the disease back to North America? They can't give it to any more humans, but they still surely "carried" the disease to North America? The disease is now in North America, brought in the immune systems of the afflicted humans. In what world does that not constitute "carrying"?
The only way this AC makes sense to me is if "carry" is meant more specifically as "spread" or "infect." West Nile virus was certainly not spread through North America by an infected person, that checks. But AC E seems to be operating with a very limited, specific definition of the word "carry," how are we ever to know that the test writers actually mean a more specific medical process of spreading or infection by the simple verb "carry"?
I was able to get this question right because no other AC was really a possibility, but I'm wondering about the role of the word "suitable" here in the stimulus versus the AC. AC D says that breeding territory suitability is determined by observing another breeding pair there, explaining why they choose to oust the breeding pair instead of going for vacant lakes. But the stimulus describes the vacant lakes as "perfectly suitable." So are we to assume that the suitability determination in the stimulus was made by humans or non-loons and that the loon determination of suitability, tied to presence of another breeding pair, is more trustworthy than that suggested in the stimulus, thus in a way overruling the suitability determination of the stimulus? I'm wondering how we balance similar terms that are mentioned in the stimulus and answer choices. In a harder question with more attractive alternative AC's, would the fact that vacant lakes have already been said to be suitable in the stimulus make the suitability determination made by the loons less attractive of an answer choice?
I wasn't sure about A because even if darker roasts have more caffeine, if darker roasts also contain NMP that mitigates the production of irritating acid, would the additional caffeine really matter if its harmful effects would be mitigated, if not prevented entirely?
@MarcusTsang Thanks for this explanation. Similar to Arjun my thought process was that since there is no evidence of humans acting selfishly more than unselfishly, they must act selfishly and unselfishly equally or they act unselfishly more often than selfishly. Now from your explanation I know that there is no evidence for either really in the claim. But my biggest takeaway from the negative comparisons lesson was the two correct interpretations that can come from a negative comparative relationship. But in this case a lack of evidence for X>Y doesn't necessarily imply evidence for X=Y or Y>X because there's no evidence for anything? I'm a bit confused about how to draw inferences from these sorts of questions, but I guess that's the point that no inferences can be drawn in either direction because there's no evidence provided?
@kwangleestuff519 great reasoning, really helps. An assumption I got stuck on before selecting AC D was that there's a link between claiming handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person's character and testifying in court. What if there are experts that pass the test and get certified, not thinking that it reveals anything about someone's character, but are subpoenaed or forced to testify in court about handwriting anyway? Definitely a small assumption relative to the ones necessary to other choices as you mention, but that costed me some time.