- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
This is how I view the stimulus:
The premise begins with SINCE - she will win --> public is fully informed --> 30 people must campaign (cannot afford to pay, so implies volunteers).
Conclusion If Marcia is to have a chance in winning --> 30 volunteers
Simply put: the premise is saying A --> B --> C,
therefore A -> C
I would argue that a chance winning is the same as will win.
I think what helped me further understand why answer choice C is wrong is that it widens the gap in the stimulus, but it doesn't point to the gap. One of the core lessons is not to widen the gap on flaw/descriptive reasoning questions but to simply point it out. The author does overlook the possibility mentioned in C, but other forms of communication are not what the author is concerned about. I think what C is trying to get us to think is that since the number of times a positive word is used in social media is not indicative of the frequency use of that word in other forms of communication, the person might not actually be feeling what they are posting on social media because they are using it less or more outside of social media. But again, this seems to me that this answer choice is trying to widen the gap, whereas we simply want to point towards a flawed assumption/idea that is embedded in the stimulus.
I believe what gives the answer choice away is that the stimulus says both are treated the same. To me, the second sentence aligns more with the correct answer than the first sentence, which says people will low self-esteem will be treated disrespectfully. It is almost as if you have to find an answer choice that reconciles both sentences, because how can the first sentence state that people will be treated disrespectfully if both were treated the same?
I knew it - Answer A seemed to attractive when compared to answer C. I had a gut feeling it was answer C but couldn't decipher why answer C was correct. Should have trusted my gut.
Isn't the first sentence just the contrapositive of the first part of the second sentence, just worded slightly different.
First sentence: Science ---> /explain emotional phenomenon
1st part of second sentence: Explains emotions --> /PCN (which is a subset of science)
contrapositive: PCN --> / explain emotions
If that's the case, then it's not just context.
When I'm reviewing a question, and I am under the notes section, I get kicked out and redirected to the explanation video or sometimes the pop-up window just closes down without me clicking on anything. After I try to get back into the notes section of the question, it takes a while for the pop-up window to load. And sometimes when it does load, it just closes again. I had this other issue where the timer, during a practice test, glitched and kept jumping back between 3 to 5 seconds. After going through three questions, the clock ran without glitching.
Anyone else having these problems? I thought it might have been my computer or WIFI but other websites run perfectly fine.
How are we pick up on that most skillful translation is the sufficient condition for an literary translation?
e. It fails to consider the possibility that dogs with properly developed bones can develop arthritis.
My understanding of AC E is that if the author had said that underdeveloped bones is the only cause of arthritis, then it seems that AC E would be correct. Because even with properly developed bones, dogs could still have arthritis. In other words, there arthritis has various causes. Would this be another way of looking at AC E?
b. To run, an animal must have all of its feet off the ground at once.
If we take the contrapositive of answer choice B, it translates to:
If an animal doesn't have all four feet off the ground at once, then it is not running.
Then insert the facts from the stimulus:
Elephants don't have all their feet off the ground at once.
The sufficient condition is triggered.
We can then conclude that elephants do not run.
Yeah, I don't like this question.