- Joined
- Jul 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Why did I understand riddled basins of attraction more than this passage?
I think what makes this reading such a nightmare is that they made this the last passage in the section! That's so cruel.
I don't even think the content is the worst - I've had more difficulty with those abstract law or philosophy passages personally.
But making this the last section during the time crunch is rough.
@TobiStein "I need to read more slowly and closely"
i tell myself this everyday 🥀🥀
@Xexne198 I had this exact same reasoning and got this question wrong too.
However, i believe that even if we interpret it wrongly, the answer can still be argued against. It says hunters kill "no fewer" than they used to, so potentially they can hunt MORE DEER than they used to.
So to use your example:
1000 hunters each kill 50 deer in 1960 = 50,000 deer dead
400 hunters each kill 5000 deer in 2025 = 22,000,000 deer dead
Aced a 4 star passage right before this one and then got ABSOLUTELY shafted by this 2 star passage.
Maybe I just need more exposure to this genre of writing but I am still reeling.
@natoj I actually read the sentence as: Aesthetic --> Stimulating
In other words, i read it like: anything aesthetic MUST have a stimulating character to it.
Because of that, we could do the contrapositive:
/Stimulating --> /Aesthetic
And that, sort of, follows with Answer E. The poem is (not aesthetic) BECAUSE it's (not stimulating). In this way, I'm sort of viewing the phrase after "because" as the sufficient condition while the phrase before it is the necessary condition.
Overall I don't think this question is really meant for conditional logic, but it didn't stop me from trying. lol
I might be in the minority opinion but this was a very enjoyable read!
I was imagining in my head the awkward photos being taken of subjects who just didn't wanna be in the photos lol