why ongoing?

completely missed the 'violate" part of the stimulus?

i read fatalities instead of facilities

the stem says that they didn't have contact with a third civilization - can it not still be possible to have received influence from a third civilization without the need of "contact"? like, hearsay or records about that third civilization

got D in blind review through perhaps a faulty assumption: that somehow dinners eaten outside one's abode are just as vaoluable in nutrition, variety and number of courses.

i didnt read the stem properly, glossed over LEAST

I chose D but why, would it not be better to talk about proportion or percentages than "how many"

twice the target time; how are we supposed to do this under time pressure

We are assuming through answer choice E that the significant pay raise will be enough for them to afford moving within 30 minutes commute to their office.

I chose D, however, one must assume that there is a causal link - if you say it does not always cause it, doesn't that mean that there are times in which it does actually cause it?

It is a big assumption jump with E, that just beause people watch television for longer time, then that translates into the tv watchers spending more on the tv advertised products and thus ratcheting up profits for the companies there advertised

i backtracked from C beause I could see that the family as a whole could benefit yet the family members as individuals stand to lose

I thought that B was descriptively accurate yet did not amount to a flaw per se. When is it actually behooving to choose the cookie-cutter sample representative flaw answer? Jus because this time it is an ad we have to rise the level of scrutiny?

I was hesitant between B and C but steered away from C because the stimulus said "historians may try" - may is different from must, is that a reasonable approach so as not to confuse a may statement with something that is required?

But there is no mention of "common enemy" in the stimulus.

I diagrammed like this:

/used safely elsewhere for over a year OR /show safety at the factory ---> /ANP

CONTRAPOSITIVE:

ANP ---> used safely elsewhere for over a year AND show safety at the factory

Can I get some clarification as to why J.Y. does:

ANP ---> used safely elsewhere for over a year OR show safety at the factory

it gave me a brain aneurysm - but got it right eventually

What if everyone on the whole planet is a friend to Tanya?

I would say that D is not irrelevant, but it even weakens the argument because if these telephone companies cannot provide with fiber-optic through their telephone services to those remote areas, then you have those owned cable companies having a whole market for themselves which cannot be threatened by fiber-optic.

I chose D at first and then switched to A - my reasoning was that Carl makes no mention of "accessibility", he is sort of silent on that...

@MateoAgudelo Just watched Kevin's version - he says that Dodd's lack of contestation to the lineage claim set forth by Chai indicates that he tacitly agrees with Chai on that, but would that not be an over-stretch? Like, we would be assuming that silence equates to assent.

I second-guessed and after having picked B went with A because B talked about lineage and I did not see any mention of it in Dodd's statement...

I need clarification: stories that are well-written can be somber and pessimistic, is that tantamount to stories that are somber and pessimistic can be well-written??

QUESTION: in question number 3, the answer says SOME PILOTS ARE BLIND, but we agreed that some could go to the extent of covering ALL, so that would not be negating the initial statement

Question: doesn't FAMOUS <--SOME--> SA equal to /FAMOUS <--SOME--> SA ; if not all skilled artists are famous, then there are some skilled artists that are indeed famous... or isn't that so?