- Joined
- Jan 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
WOOF. Don't like this questions...
I selected A, in which, yes, you have to assume the economic conditions of the city have improved and, thus, have decreased crime rates.
E is a good answer in that the roll-out of an earlier enacted policy is having ripples still. This directly attacks the conclusion that it is the mandatory sentencing which is dropping the crime rates, not something else (e.g., police hiring).
But OOF. To select E, you have to assume:
a) an increased # of police is effective at reducing violent crime
b) the police force isn't losing a # of police equal to or greater than the police they are hiring over those three years.
Both A and E require assumptions, but I think B requires greater ones...
D threw me off because you can still be involved with the population you are studying and still be objective. Proximity to/involvement in a population doesn't automatically lower objectivity.
What I had reasoned to decide between C and E:
Gray uses the inside to design the outside.
C: the outside (vase) is based on the inside (flower)
E: the inside (human) determines the form of the outside (chair). E matches.
Lost here. Does B not imply that the birds hunt during the daylight, thus not during the night?
Having so much trouble seeing why promoting a folk remedy would be interference - I feel as though the promoter would have to know that the person they are marketing to would continue the folk remedy instead of pursing conventional treatments.
I really appreciated the written explanation for this question. The "provided that" is exactly why I got this question wrong. I diagrammed "appreciate -> reflect" instead of "reflect -> appreciate."
Should have read it as "you will appreciate these differences if you (provided that) reflect on your own civilization."
Hung up on this one - I don't like the assumption in B that those in the former group will be interacting with those in the latter group. What if the avoiders only interact with avoiders?
I picked A, and I do now understand that it is unsupported, because you don't know when they'd be willing to speak.
Is A wrong just because it requires a greater assumption than B?
When doing blind review, should I hover over the pink circle on the question (thus indicating if I got it wrong, took too long on it, changed my answer multiple times, etc.) or not? Particularly, I'm not sure if it is harmful to do BR already knowing that I got that question wrong.
Thanks :)
The stimulus refers to the GREATEST # of lamps being assoc. w/ Magdalenian culture.
E: the fact there were more KINDS of lamps is irrelevant. There could be many types of lamps, but few of them.
Thus, this does not help explain why there is a greater # of lamps associated w/ Magdalenian culture.
Why the others help explain the skew:
A - if an artifact cannot be ID'd (as a lamp), it cannot count against the Magdalenian culture/tip the scales
B - If more Mag. sites, more artifacts.
C - Being efficient doesn't mean you make more of them, it just means you can make them quicker, with less materials, etc.
D - if fire pits were more common, likely a lesser need for lamps
This was very tricky for me. I was able to identify that C was logically inconsistent; it went directly against the argument's conclusion. However, given the stimulus, I could not identify how/why AC's A, B, and E were logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion, and thus I couldn't eliminate them.
Looking at the brief explanation under each answer choice, each explanation starts with, "This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict..."
Is this saying that, just because it does not conflict, it is then consistent with [the conclusion]? That makes no sense to me. Going to watch the video now to see if it shares any extra details, but I had yet to come across a question like this.
My question: Is it safe to assume that, just because an AC doesn't conflict with the stimulus' conclusion, it is logically consistent with it?
This seems contradictory to other methods we have been taught.
Update: just saw Mridula's response below. An AC can be irrelevant and still consistent. The important part is that it doesn't go against anything in the stimulus.
@Stas1973 It's been fun going through the curriculum and now practice, seeing we're at about the same pace. I appreciate your notes, especially this one! Thanks.
I'm precisely in the same place! Diagnostic 147, and 155 for about a year since then. I recently started to get 157s, but doesn't seem to be budging beyond that. Curriculum, PTs, tons of BR (consistently at 168-170), solid amount of timed drills/sections. So, I'm feeling this way, too :/ I suppose I am proud in that I am doing my best, but it's frustrating when your best isn't where you want to be!! New full time job, too, and planning to apply this cycle. WOOF is all I've got to say. Wishing you luck! It's tough!!