The overwhelming majority of the mass in the universe is composed of something else, no galaxies.

These spelling mistakes are becoming too common not to be confusing.

@julhatch I agree it's interesting, but I've never heard this claim from other companies. I wonder to what extent this is true or to what extent it appears in other questions.

Which question is this?

@cclarez61 with an explanation like this, I wonder what you're up to now!

@davidbear0169 wish there was a way to save comments, cause this is a great explanation

@pecanator gosh I hope

But HOW do we know that the conditional rule applies to ALL vacuum tubes when not ALL vacuums meet the sufficient condition to trigger the rule?

And I don't see how the final sentence applies to SEVT when they are a unique set with their own quirks: I understand the while superset / subset thing, but I think that tool makes it a little confusing here.

Why isn't Pat assumed to be a member of the club since the 1st sentence specifies who can receive the coupon?

Is it not a very very weak and reasonable assumption that only members can receive the coupon, since that's the domain being introduced?

The stimulus implies that a combination of two or more antibiotics currently on the market might be powerful enough to eliminate bacterial species X completely

How is this implied?

@MattStickles exactly! Those assumptions are dangerous!

@KevinLin thanks for explaining! I get it now

@JustinWeich I see. Guess I was just giving too much thought to this. Thank you

"Failure" in D threw me off. It's almost as if it's imposing a Value judgement onto the answer. It would better stated as "the choice of the general public".

Yes:

I'm really concerned about 7Sage's use of so many questions from random PT's. By using questions from the oldest to newest exams, they are reducing those tests we have to use later for full PT practice. Please consider pulling questions from a set range, say PT 120-130 instead of all tests.

I'm really concerned about 7Sage's use of so many questions from random PT's. By using questions from the oldest to newest exams, they are reducing those tests we have to use later for full PT practice. Please consider pulling questions from a set range, say PT 120-130 instead of all tests.

E can be reasonably argued to mean the same thing as D.

I wish E had a better explanation as to why it's wrong.

Why are two of these drill questions ones we just did minutes ago in the lessons? Defeats the purpose of the drill...

"Again, let’s say that everything in the stimulus is true. Can it be inferred that the critics of consumerism sometimes use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims?"

Does the one time occurrence in the stimulus really justify inferring that critics "sometimes" use fuzzy distinctions? I fell like "sometimes" means at least more than once.

"First, it would not be borne out by predictions. If it's true that lung cancer results only from exposure to environmental hazards, then the prediction is that once those workers were better protected from those hazards, say with better masks, yet still smoked, their rates of lung cancer would drop. But, this would not be borne out by observations over the long term. Lung cancer from asbestos exposure surely would drop. But because smoking in fact causes lung cancer, if those workers kept smoking, their lung cancer rates would still match those in the general population who smoked yet were never subject to the additional occupational risk."

But wouldn't the incidence of lung cancer still be shown to have lowered among the workers now protected from asbestos (even if they still smoked), showing that some third factor can also be causing A and B?

Not sure how this paragraph is airtight in its causal logic. What am I missing?

@nirvanahabash219 what about

most cool things are apples. And most apples are yellow. Therefore, some things that are yellow are also cool.

@KevinLin, thank you! That makes more sense.

For my kitten example above, why exactly can't we take the contrapositive of a most claim?

Is it because, in that example, nothing has to go to home with children?

I have a pressing question about this rule (below) when using the unless negation technique:

1. "Sufficient failed yields no information about the necessary."

Here's the issue: when you have a sentence like, "cars are blocked from the bridge unless they have a special pass", using the unless technique yields this:

/blocked --> special pass

OR

/special pass --> blocked

But when applying the above rule (1.), failing the sufficient condition in either of those scenarios does tell us that the necessary cannot occur.

What am I missing?

"Because the spring cleanup took place at the same time as the downtown arts fair, we know that there are at least some spring cleanup participants who are not active in the town's artistic circles."

Isn't there a (supporter) necessary assumption here that one could not do both the spring cleanup and the arts fair?

I know the explanation says this can't be inferred, but I'm not understanding how not inferring this isn't necessary for the conclusion to follow (i.e., since the stimulus indicated its conclusion with "Because").

What am I missing?

Is there any question that uses the nuance in #5? I've never seen one and have done hundreds.

kitten —m→ /home-children

This seems like yet another claim you can take the contrapositive of to infer:

home-childern --s--> /kitten

Much the same for:

PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 21