@ctrue22 Pretty sure she's talking about the citations of Miss Jean Brodie

@CurtisBristol Thank you for sharing that about the June exam! Do you remember if the space that's currently taken up by the navigation menu at the top in LawHub was just filled with grey space on the actual exam? Or did they shift the passages and questions up as well to create a bigger overall screen? I just feel like when LawHub is not in full screen there's so little space that you can barely see all the ACs in the same frame.

@ITTutoring Okay thank you I feel crazy! I took a Ptest this morning and it was there. Went to review it in the evening and it was gone. How can we complain about changes to the interface happening the night before the August testing window starts?

I'm assuming splitters just want to increase the total number of species. Say they double the number of all species, naturally the number of endangered species gets doubled as well. How on earth does this translate to the splitter is more likely to split endangered species?

My issue with A is that a rule in LR is that you cannot weaken an argument by attacking a premise. If the author says "pigs have wings, therefore pigs can fly," you cannot weaken this argument by saying "well actually pigs do not have wings." You must take that as fact, and weaken the conclusion by saying "wings aren't sufficient for flying."

So how can you directly contradict the part of the stimulus that says "anyone who opposes higher taxes will be a better leader" by saying "no, it's just not true"? The stimulus is categorically not stating the opinion of the majority. It is not saying "a majority of people think anyone who opposes higher taxes will be a better leader, therefore it is true." The author is himself stating that "anyone who opposes taxes will be a better leader," and assuming that "many would agree. "

First they make eliminating answer choices so much harder... then highlighting...

Is this similar to sufficient assumption, where the AC can be much stronger than what is needed in this specific instance? I think this threw me off because (in addition to offending sensibilities of right and wrong we all probably have) it just seemed very extreme.

Just an update since I asked about this in OH - the historian does provide evidence that the goal's weren't overambitious (they were quickly achieved) and that they did not cause great suffering (not enough power). However, the evidence he provides is terrible, and he therefore fails to establish either of the things he is trying to prove. If D had said that he "fails to establish that the revolutionary party's goals were not overambitious," D would be correct. But the historian does provide evidence, just terrible evidence...

@SirHarvey Totally agree, but the government isn't placing restrictions on all companies, which would lower the price it will receive from any one of them. It is placing restrictions on WHO can purchase, meaning StateRail is no longer being bid on in an open market. Suppose there are 100 companies bidding to purchase StateRail, but 70 of them are not majority owned by citizens of Country F. If the government must place significant restrictions on WHO can purchase, 70 of the 100 bidders can no longer purchase StateRail, and 30 bidders are left (so the highest bidder of the 100 might have been eliminated by the government). The government is not first requiring that all 100 bidders grant majority ownership to citizens of country F and thereafter all 100 naturally lower their bids.

Ridiculous mental gymnastics, I know...

@Magnuslehan I think the issue here is the phrasing "entire earnings." Both passages agree that under either tax system, progressive or flat, no one is getting taxed on their entire earnings regardless of income level. There is always some portion of earnings that is exempt from any level of tax.

The dictionary definition of ornamental directly clashes with the dictionary definition of visually austere. Why are we quite literally making up definitions. The fact that this furniture is ornamental is not suggested anywhere in the passage. It's functional, favoring straight lines and simple forms. The last paragraph just indicates that all this architecture serves more than one function, not that it's somehow also ornamental.

@LowriThomas P1 says ""dark matter," provides the gravitational force necessary to make the huge structures cohere." It would be nonsensical to sub cohere for AC B, which would produce "huge structures form galactic structures." I understand the question is asking about P2 and not P1, but are we really saying P2 isn't using the same meaning of "cohere" as P1?

P1 says ""dark matter," provides the gravitational force necessary to make the huge structures cohere." It would be nonsensical to sub cohere for AC B, which would produce "huge structures form galactic structures." I understand the question is asking about P2 and not P1, but are we really saying P2 isn't using the same meaning of "cohere" as P1?

Any recommendations for which AI to upload the transcript to? Claude + Gemini are asking me to upload transcripts instead of audio recordings, if that's what you did, what platform did you use to transcribe the recordings?

How on earth does quickly achieved prove that something is not overambitious

How can an argument concerning "popularity" not "depend on the traits of audience members who enjoy disrespectful comedy"

I'm confused, the proponents are only saying that there will be an abatement in environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. How do we jump from that to worse environmental consequences as a whole? While it will still contribute to environmental degradation, the proponents are simply saying that auto emissions will decrease.

Why does 7sage not allow BR of tests taken in LawHub? It is incredibly natural that students will want to practice with the real interface rather than with 7sage's interface.

Why would answer choice E be any different if the evaluations are submitted online versus on paper. If dissatisfied students are more likely to submit computerized evaluations, shouldn't that hold true for paper as well?