- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Essentially this argument makes a comparison between approximate and non-approximate friend making without actually addressing what the comparative probabilities of both events are, only the former.
The logical structure of this argument is based on the idea that when X is available --> Y , and X isn't available --> opposite Y.
A is correct because we can reframe money supply fluctuation to be the lack of availability of a stable money supply.
When Money supply is stable --> y happens
When money supply isn't stable --> opposite y happens.
B is wrong because lack of available candy is contrasted against healthy meals which isn't a supply of candy.
C is wrong because it doesn't fit double casual formula we use.
D is wrong because supercilious facial expression isn't a lack of confidence
E is wrong because we don't contrast a lack of diversion activities to having them.
8/8, this section is insane. You literally have to read into B all the goofiness about positive and negative evidence.
Lowkey I just control F searched for "thrive indefinitely" because I knew that was a logical leap that a correct answer would address.
I got this right, which is interesting. I did the logic totally correctly with the contrapositive to get to D, but still didn't like the middle ground between uncomfy and comfortable, but chose it anyway cause I felt the others were definitely incorrect and D could be correct. Very weird.
This question makes a lot of sense when you think about it historically. Of course people living in tribal societies or developing early agricultural societies lacked modern animal research, pyschology, and advanced training techniques. That would make many animals once thought impossible to domesticate realistic in the modern day, which undermines the argument immensely. B shuts down that possibility by saying that all those advancements are irrelevant, thus making prior attempts similarly likely as modern ones, making their first mover advantage much more important of a factor.
Somehow I got 5/6 on this and I'm deeply impressed with that result because WTF
Having both Woody Allen and Thomas Sowell in the same passage really is the who's who's of evil.
Lowkey a bad question because achieving goals quickly is NOT evidence of not being overambitious whatsoever. It is irrelevant to whether they were not overambitious because what they did =/= what they believe. Frustrating.
I got this one right, but I still feel A is a weird answer choice because wrinkled surfaces may be formed to help fend off other bacteria, and the increase in direct contact is just a bonus. I guess it's supports, but very little when you think about it.
Bruh I barely read E, I just looked at D and was like "seems good to me" and dodged a shotgun to the face.
@PowerUp_Tutoring Definitely true. I mentioned this more to highlight that once you realize that the stimulus is making a logical argument, you don't really need to map the stimulus onto the answer structurally.
With this one you honestly didn't even need to read the stimulus, B-E are all invalid comparisons and A is the only correct one.
@arose Yup same here. I figured there was some missing conditional regarding why we cared about expensive props, and A made no sense, so I went for E.
I think another reason D is wrong is that it's just a vague necessary condition. Very possible hatchery raised fish need to eat many different types of food, but that the number is low enough that both traditional and experimental fish all meet that criteria; it's just that experimental fish overperform.
EX: Fish need 5 types of food, traditional usually eat 7 and experimental eat 11. They both meet that condition and therefore, it doesn't support the conclusion.
C, meanwhile, shows us that some fish from traditional hatcheries die more often and so, all else being equal, are less likely to survive compared to experimental.
The reason why it's not C is that gifts by friends and family could be 65%, 70% of the average price. The fact it could be that means it has the potential to be net neutral for the argument, which means it doesn't seriously weaken it.
It seems to me that the main point of passage A is that in history there was a trend away from studying Women's individual lived experiences and toward gender as a social structure, and that we lost care about historical women's lived experiences as a result.
Not too difficult for me as a history major, but for any non-humanities major, I can see how this can seem confusing.
I got -1 on this passage and that's my greatest achievement because TF???
Went from a 160 diagnostic a month ago to a 179 PT!!! 7Sage is great.
The way I can best describe the correct answer is with math!
It goes: Bring about X economy, then after that, achieve maximum total utility.
There is a % chance of achieving X economy, and a % chance of achieving maximum utility. The most likely option is the higher product of these two probabilities.
So a critic could say that a pure free market economy could only have a 1% chance of being brought about if pursued by the controlled economy, but then a 100% of achieving maximum utility.
On the flip side, a controlled economy has a 100% of achieving a controlled economy (it already has one) and has a 50% chance of achieving maximum utility.
Both these situations satisfy the premises that the editorial gives, but the free market getting total utility is only a 1%, while a controlled economy is 50%.
The key part of this problem is realizing that achieving this outcome is a two-step process, and the editorial doesn't give us the odds for the transition from controlled to free market. Therefore, it does not justify that switching to a free market is the most likely outcome to achieve maximum utility.
I got this one right but totally missed the distinction between residents of a city in the hospital and residents of a city in that cities hospitals. I just thought that the City Y had such better quality hospitals that people would leave it more often, thus balancing out any people sent for treatment. Bruh.
Wow got 100% on this absolutely disgustingly hard passage. Despite being hard is it really fun.