"Also, the earliest clocks were the most complicated"

I made the same mistakes, but TC-1 makes a good point.

Line 33-34 suggest that no known/existing peptide (before the research) binds to semiconductor materials.

Line 37-38 suggest that B&H grew a billion new peptides, which are a different set of peptides than the previous known peptides.

Lines 44-48 thus suggest that from those grown random assortment of 1 bn peptides, a subset of them had promising characteristics, from which they used to grow another set.

E is thus a bad answer choice because 1. the peptides that B&H tested (stem) are not the same ones that other researchers have previously tested, if they even did, mentioned in line 33-34, and 2. "reactions" is a vague word.

A, as TC-1 mentions, is affirmed by all 3 of the sentences above, which confirm that the peptides tested by B&H are

I crossed out A in #21 because although it is abstract, it was derived from an earlier version of the symbol from the token system since sheep is livestock (line 32). The connection is a stretch, but even then it wouldn't be a problem for A because it could still nonetheess be replacable.

To understand the stimulus, I added "But there are many truthful books that are also very popular".

It helps to highlight the point of the argument, that if we take the wrong claim to be true, we draw the absurd conclusion that the truthfulness of a book can be determined by its sales figures (Popular books give pleasure and are not truthful).

Agreed, Gamba more so tackle the premise itself than the relationship between the premise and conclusion

Why is the passage single position if there are multiple positions mentioned throughout history & cases? Why is it problem-analyses if there is a spotlight on the issue of "tradition's definition"?

Fault lines are mini-chasms that form from an earthquake where anything can fall in. In this case, things that fall in include items with Carbon-14, which in the 1st paragraph is used for dating since they are trapped, undisturbed under the earth.

If there were no fault lines from an earthquake, there is no trapped Carbon-14 to carbon-date in the modern day. Without trapped sediments with carbon-14 decaying the entire radiocarbon dating method is no longer useful.

POE is an easier way to justify B. E is wrong because it says Lichenometry's usefulness is limited TO sites where unusual growth generally do not occur. These 2 phrases, in hindsight, were the red flags that showed why E wasn't right.

Limited To means you should not conduct a lichenometry at a location with disturbed growth. The passage directly opposes that by saying you can "factor in" faster lichen growth. If you know what could change growth & by how much lichenometry is just as useful as it is in a consistent growth environment

This also means that it's OK if unusual growth does occur, as long as it is factored in. The usefulness of lichenometry is preserved.

Why is this considered a Single Position passage if there are 2 methods presented?

Can we consider this passage as a problem-analysis engagement style?

Buy is the same as purchasing.

Bought x → Purchased x

Purchased x → Bought x

Bought ↔ Purchased.

Other examples include Big & Large, Finished & Completed, etc.

Exactly what I was thinking. "One is less likely to be injured in an automobile accident if" means "In an accident, you're less likely injured if." The "less" comparison is on the (# injured) / (# accidents) per car.

#feedback

- P1: TF is valuable because it 1:conceptual organization of material and 2: fruitful expansion of research.

- Ctxt Historians: Historical Analysis is done best within a TF

- P2: The past is too complex for main trends to be captured (--> 1: conceptual organiztion of material is not strong)

Conclusion:

D: Historians that uses TF in HA emphasize the value of point 2

C: Even the best HA with TF fails to capture Main Trend

C is definitely true, but D seems to be more on theme and a reasonable conclusion to reach from the given information. C also doesn't consider P1. Advice?

Edit: On closer read, the philosophers liked Poetics, but the poets liked Homer. It's implied that Poetics was translated but Homer never was, consistent with the answer choice.

P1: UF or US (Must be one or the other)

P2: UF → Modify

P3: US → Adopt

E: Popular with F → UF → US → Adopt

P1: Interested → Translated (Translated → Interested)

P2: Translated

P3: Philosophers were interested

Conclusion: Poets Interested

Why A is good: It addresses the alternative explanation that P2 (Not translated) happened because there was not access to the manuscript (Access → Translated)

Raised concerns: If Philosophers were interested, the poem should still have been translated in ancient times by the philosophers. So the last sentence raises a conflict in narrative.

The premise could also be interpreted as Samantha would not leave footprints or fingerprints, as in she would either leave footprints or leave fingerprints. That's a bad way to leverage the situation though, and I think it just reflects poor writing on LSAC's part.

The premise isn't violated, because the fingerprints could have been Jansen's (since it is his office afterall). Reminds me of the VideoKing Frequent Viewers discount coupon question (MBT)

Exactly what I thought. I initially (without grounds) assumed that only H & S were in the room - and Jansen by default - so when I saw E, I thought it was correct, because then the fingerprints must have been Jansen's!

However, C is the right answer because it not only establishes the fact that there were only H & S in the office, but it also leaves ground to establish that it was Jansen's fingerprints found (by process of elimination) without violating any of the previous premises. E is wrong because it leaves room to say that it was John's fingerprints left, since in no situation was John said NOT to be in the office.

This question reminds me of a MBT question (The VideoKing frequent Viewers Club question, for example) that challenges our assumptions.

This could not have been established without the right answer choice as a new premise. It's an extrapolation given that you have already chosen the right answer choice (SI -> RL), and it would not have helped with approaching the original conclusion.

The conclusion from the stimulus is that the disease were "eradicated" by pollution. Doesn't the return of the diseases directly weaken the "eradication" section?

#help (Added by Admin)