- Joined
- Jan 2026
- Subscription
- Core
International candidate with nGPA.
Aiming for Columbia, NYU, Cornell, and Duke.
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
@Allen_the_Alien The scientist's logic is
Fact : High F(Ferrous Material), Low CO2.
Algae(modern) absorbs CO2
More Algae(modern) -> Lower CO2
Hypothesis : High F -> More Algae(?) -> Lower CO2.
So A actually prevents alternative explanation in my opinion. If A wasn't true, one could claim:
Diatoms and algae in general has changed significantly, so just because their modern variants absorb CO2, we don't know if they did same on last ice age.
This undermines the scientist's hypothesis that low CO2 was caused by more Algae, which breaks the second chain of their hypothesis. Preventing alternative explanation is strengthening.
I fall into B as trap, because I predicted the answer would be "Using lack of counter-evidence as evidence something is right" - which was correct. But B is saying "basis of evidence against Ziegler being sane" even there is no evidence whatsoever that Ziegler being not sane.
E is correct, because the correct answer whether Ziegler was sane or not is "we don't know" based on the information given on stimulus, yet the stimulus assumes that "the only reasonable conclusion" is to assume Ziegler was insane. So he's using lack of evidence Ziegler being sane as evidence Ziegler being insane.
So the actually correct answer is "failing to consider possibility that Ziegler was sane", and using future sanity as proxy part makes E less ideal AC, but it still describes the flaw in stimulus most accurately compared to the others.
The answer is C.
Great leaders support sound policy, regardless of its popularity
(This policy is not sound) - this is the matter covered in this question.
So legislators should not support this policy.
The activist's claim is (negative economic consequence) -> (not sound) -> (should not support). So the correct question would be "Is negative economic consequence sufficient condition for a policy to be unsound?" - which is not considered on stimulus.
@Allen_the_Alien “One scientist noted that algae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” and “Largely unchanged”
If something has a certain characteristic, and it hasn’t changed largely, it is reasonable to believe it had same characteristics in the past.
Hi!
I had my first official test on June and got 172.
I'm looking for group of people in EMEA timezone who are willing to join daily online 1-hour study sessions to motivate themselves on drilling and avoiding "just one day off".
I'm currently living in UTC+4 timezone, and I'm thinking about 9 PM to 10 PM in my local time every day to practice and teach each other. You don't really need to be in timezone as long as you can join the study session.
Let me know if you are interested.
@Stas1973 If the government cannot determine whether the citizens have the majority of the resulting company or not, couldn't we argue that the government failed to "ensure" majority share owned by the citizens?
I think it should be available only for sections and >10 questions drills
@Stas1973 Ohhh the property meant the ground where the grave was located! I've also missed that part and got really confused with the explanation.
@Elle I believe A actually strengthens the hypothesis. If diatoms went through major evolutionary changes since the last ice age, one can argue "Just because 'modern diatoms' absorb carbon dioxide, we can not assume 'ice age diatoms' absorbed carbon dioxide since it changed so drastically".
So A actually blocks a possible argument against the hypothesis, thus strengthening the it.
@Stas1973 Yes, maybe some shells of diatoms in the sediment of last ice age might not be there due to fishes or any other events.
But wouldn't it be also the case for any other periods? Unless we can assume "any other events" only affected shells of diatoms in specific period - which we can't - it would be reasonable to believe the diatoms shells in the sediment is proportional to its population of that age.
To be honest A,B,C and E does not undermine the hypothesis in any way and I chose D by the method of elimnation.
@RyanTalbot321 I just went through BR on this question and now I can explain.
The second part of principle says when the office "should" get commendation. Just because Penn is not in a position to "should" have received commendation, we can't assume Penn "should not" receive commendation.
Remember, opposite of "should" is not "shouldn't", but "not necessarily" in logics.
The only way we can conclude Penn should not receive MC is assuming Penn was not eligible from the beginning.
To be honest I chose C just because other statements are supporting wildlife commission.
The wildlife commission literally started their argument by stating development of wetlands has resulted in species being endangered. Unless supported by further evidence which demonstrates how "Figorian wetland development" is different from "development of wetlands in industrialized nations", C is very weak argument.
@MichaelKrayyem There's no logical correlation between pollution and high-fat diet - which is why D is answer.
D provides alternative explanation on why countries with high-fat diets have higher cancer rate (i.e. pollution, which happens to be in high level in high-fat countries, cause cancer), thus weakening the argument.
B also provides alternative explanation on the reason(wealth), but relies on further assumption that wealth cause cancer - thus being worse at weakening the argument.
Pollution causes cancer -> makes sense.
Wealth causes cancer -> people will start asking why
@dreamingofwharton I think (E) does strengthen the hypothesis in some way since it eliminates the possibility of CJD being result of blood injection, regardless of Alzheimer "virus".
However D is certainly much stronger statement to support the hypothesis since it actually shows connection between Alzheimer and CJD virus, rather than eliminating one of countless other explanation.
If you are still on your curriculum, I suggest not doing the PT at all - and focus on getting your understanding on each question types. You'll have more than enough time to improve your time, and once you get more prepared for the test, your PT time will naturally improve.