I was not able to make to connection between online searching and increased online access. For some reason these were sepereate ideas in my head.

Ok this confuses me for several reasons. I thought "main cause" was synonymous with "most", as said in the first sentence. Economic factors-> treating rudely-> discouraging questions -> perception of negligence and carelessness. So I chose A. But people in the comments are saying that the stimulus didn't mention the main cause? Isn't it that people think their doctors are negligent and careless? I guess the problem is that it never said that economic factors were the main cause of rudeness.

Also for E, I didn't think that carelessness, negligence or rudeness was enough to justify "not caring". I think you could be all of those things and still care about your patients.

I thought it was C because if ineffective treatments are becoming more common, then more people will have X, therefore requiring more treatment. I was doing a 5 star drill so ignored the obvious answer in E because I thought it was too obvious, and thought that maybe the total amount of money on treatment could go down, while this specific treatment could go up or stay the same.

I misunderstood this to be in the perspective of the employee so I chose E

I got this question right but it confused tf out of me. Honestly I still don't understand why B is right. It's more right than the others, sure, but who cares about quantities when the law is about concentration? If B is true, then the law doesn't make much sense in the first place. Why not a law that regulates by mass rather than concentration?

I got this wrong twice because I didn't understand the argument was comparative, glossed over the sentence about the producer's ad :(

I chose B because I did not think that the author concluded that there was evidence against the hypothesis. I assumed he thought it wrong simply due to the lack of positive evidence. So I chose B.

For some reason I couldn't connect "few becoming more efficient" with "more time organizing activities" so I chose D.

I think I got this wrong (I picked A) because I misunderstood what the argument is talking about-I thought it was explaining the difference between the two lakes that we had to do instead of the role of the fishing ban. Kinda obvious in hindsight, I did consider B but decided against it because I thought "well, that still dosent explain why the fish are declining in the other lake".

I thought that the amount of quotations were a sign of neutrality, but I guess not.

I'm reading through these comments and I still don't understand how the argument "Our devices are easier for drivers to use, and hence they are safer" is not conditional. Can someone explain that?

I thought that the two proposals were "it is wrong that humans could not have evolutionarily adapted to cooked foods" and "selection led o humans being unable to eat raw foods"... Why is that wrong?

For some reason I thought it was talking about two different people's columns

I don't get it. Is the amount of money earned not different from profit? I could make 1200 selling a computer I spent 1000 on and I would earn 1200 but only profit 200. This is why I dismissed A and went for B, which I interpreted as saying "if the manager thinks he can sell twice as many low-end models as last year, he's wrong".

Can someone explain where I went wrong?

Ok but what if I actually do want to go to law school for the "wrong" reasons like salary and job security? I wouldn't say its the path of least resistance, I'm sure it'll be very hard, but I don't really have a reason for going to do with morals or ethics

Can someone explain why E is wrong? I got this right on blind review so I understand that C is the better answer. But how is E unsupported?

The only feature of mice in health research we know about is that they are in small cages. The tech argues that these conditions are abnormal. So I assumed that larger cages are the norm, or at least that the small cages are the abnormal part. How is this unsupported???

#help

I got it right, but isn't D a little too strong? Of course it is the least wrong out of the answers, but the stimulus does not seem committed to denying that jewels should be priced by, for example their size.

Well, I thought it said 75% of people... Honestly not sure if I would have gotten it even if I read that lol. Tough one for sure.

If, instead of concluding that they will go home, C said something like "Since there is not a single restaurant in the area that all three of them like, they will probably not visit a restaurant that night", would it be correct?

I chose E because the wording confused me. Is he accusing him of plagiarism, or just reading his book? Because if both read an author in 1860, how does that take away from the chance that G read J's book?

Hi I have a question. If D said something like: Most accidents involving teenagers occur at night instead of the afternoon, could that work? I chose it because people tend to get sleepy in the evening, is the question wrong because it's not specific enough, or something else?

Can someone explain how removing the appliances is "indicating they aren't included"? If they're not there, then why would the prospective buyers assume anything was there in the first place? I know that in real life it would be obvious, I just don't see an omission of something as an "indication"

D: Punishment certain --> crime reduction

R: No, Educational opps --> crime reduction

What do these two views have in common?

I ruled out A) because I thought it was out of scope, not mentioned in stimulus.

I ruled out B) because it seemed obviously not required for either argument

I said C), because I thought I saw that idea in both. In reality, it is only mentioned explicitly in R's argument (education for everyone)

Ruled out D because it only appeared in R's argument

Ruled out E because it only appeared in D's argument

In reality, both D and R subtly imply that they believe that people can choose to commit crimes. D says "considering committing a crime", R says "who once viewed crime as a means of a comfortable lifestyle".... This means they both believe people are capable of choosing their crimes.

aaarg I read it the first time as must be true...

I didn't see exactly what the sufficiency/necessity confusion was but got the right answer based on process of elimination. I thought the problem was that the people who believe if you're indicted you should resign obviously also believe if you're convicted you should resign, so the error was separating into two groups what was actually concentric circles.