- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
my prediction was the answer would not talk about the bev at at all. Had to dig a little deeper for the correct answer here!
I got this one right by using POE and coming up with a little story about E in my head:
Avg income not growing as much relative to the price per car could still mean wealth disparities grew wider over the past 25 years
So, if just the higher-income people (who are spending less relative to counterparts' income than 25 years ago) & corporations are purchasing cars, then it is totally possible for the conclusion to be false.
I don't think so... "other" refers to anything other than deep tillage methods. They suggest farmers should use other techniques in order to incorporate no-till methods (which we can reasonably assume do not include tilling methods other than deep tilling)
Seeing now that B is wrong since the principle is that an acceptable social philosophy must promote peach and order. They so not disagree that L-FC is a social philosophy. In fact, they refer to anarchy as a social philosophy. Trap answer got me!
This feels like it could easily be flipped and made NA. Like, an assumption the argument requires is that there are medieval epistemologists. So a way to weaken the argument is that there might not be any medieval epistemologists, which would ruin the argument and make the definition impossible to use
In case anyone had the same issue as me on this one...
I completely misunderstood the stim. When it talked about the % being = regardless of the specialist or GP, I got stuck on the understanding that the statistic was combined, like the combined the % was 31%, which meant it could differ greatly by the specific type of dr.
In reality, "regardless" of the type of provider means that if you saw a specialist, the % is 31, and if you saw a GP, the % is 31. The stim established that they indeed have equal results.
The correct answer is much clearer with the correct understanding of the stim.
Hi! what is the best way to maintain some efficency, while still answering specific ways schools ask for your personal staement?
Hi everyone!
As many of you probably did, I just got my April LAST score back and am a little underwhelmed... For context, I started studying at the end of last May, took the September test, and got a 152. I took a step back, decided not to apply this cycle, and signed up for the April test and got a 164. I am happy with the significant score jump, but feel like I have more in the tank with most of my recent PTs being 168-174 (and a 162 2 weeks before :/ )
I was really, really hoping that would be my last test and did not sign up for the June exam. I am getting married on August 8, so the August test is off the table for me. September almost seems too soon after my wedding to really lock in again, and October feels so far away.
I work full-time, over 5 years out of undergrad, and am trying to decide if I should be content with a significant score jump or if I should try again. The burnout is real right now...
Any advice, motivation, etc would be most helpful.
My goal score is a 168 btw
I need the same advice! I had a solid score jump from the Septemeber test and now contimplating if it is good enough or if I should take again.
The reason I picked C was because I think it is the only answer that offers a "false opposition" like the one in the passage.
the written explanation of C has confused me that maybe I did not pick this answer for the right reasons....
So if C said "supports one of Malthus's positions" would it be correct?
is it possible that A is actually anti-supported by the argument? If it is impossible to understand uninterrupted streams of sounds, then that would make the non-natives perception impossible since native speakers do understand their own language
Did anyone else misunderstand the last sentence and think it meant that it would be better to be ruled by the few?
I do not understand why he chose to set up the first sentence as exist -> (less int -> /determ)
instead of
exist -> (determ -> as int)
I feel like me translating the lawgic in this way set me up for lots of confusion in this question
Advice? thx :)
is it true that for most NA questions, we do not want a conditional statement to be our answer?
misunderstood the conclusion... I thought "warning" was referring to a new idea that if doctors were going to intentinally decieve paitents, the must include a warning before they do so...
If I did this passage by myself, I would definitly take it more as a critique/debate passage. I feel like the MP follows as the author's view the ideas are the important part
I just did a useful thought exersice and wrote out my own example for each method of reasoning listed - would recommend!
We know that there are some species of ants that do not use pheromones. So if a species of ant only forages for food during the time that pheromones evaporate quickly, we can assume they do not use pheromones to guide them to food since they would be consistently unsuccessful and then starve...