- Joined
- Aug 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I love how the correct answer is just "well maybe most builders don't use papercrete because it sucks"
Another RRE (Really Really Exciting) Question:
Paradox: Camo help animals (nice); protect from prey; some animals no have normal camo (huh?); they have black and white coloration that somehow enables their survival.
Considerations: I need an AC that will point to a defining feature of this black and white camo (maybe a key difference that sets it apart from normal camo); [SPOILER ALERT] I could also look for how predators perceive normal vs black and white camo. Yes.....hmmm.....this is totally what I predicted....
Answer Choices:
A) Na...I'm pretty sure if the predator was a T-Rex and the prey were a bunch of black and white chickens...you see where I'm going with this? (Disclaimer - I may or may not have picked this AC initially....)
B) Right, but how do you explain the fact that black and white coloration seems to have a similar effect to normal camo? The idea that not all camo works 100% doesn't get me any closer to why black and white camo specifically helps some species survive.
C) WOW ok, humans see color. If this is true, and many predators don't see color, then it would now suddenly make sense that these black and white critters are enduring.
D) Are these animals of the same species hunting each other? Why does this matter?
E) Cool fact, next (the fact that it helps more at night vs day doesn't explain how they can endure longer than we would expect, say compared to a normal camo wearer)
Lost the 50/50 battle between (A) and (E) here:
I think the key to this question is that second to last sentence (the idea that the other employees are still able to make up for Ted's lack of effort). AC (A) heavily rests on this sentence, but I was initially put off by the "flavor" differences between the stim and the AC.
The stim says "other workers work harder than they should" to make up for Ted's lack of effort. AC (A) mandates that the supervisor keep Ted so long as the other workers can "perform his duties equally well."
The stim subtly confirms that the employees will be able to perform Ted's duties -- I think I just had a hard time transferring "work harder than they should" over to "can perform his duties equally well"
Dude I'm so stupid AND lucky I got this right in a pinch. Looking back at it, it's super easy now to see that Chester thinks Rose meant that the review was written poorly and that's why she doesn't want to see the move; in reality, Rose doesn't want to see the movie because she saw a bad (as in "this movie is trash") review.
Don't tell me I missed this question because the authors assumed I would read "expresses his amazement" as "reading silently to himself"
Left (B) in the dust because I thought it was attributing the wrong concept (lack of faith in the system) to the comedian's disdain for the legal route. I discounted it because of the bit about financing and "juice ain't worth the squeeze" train of thought -- didn't think to connect them together oof
So mad because I quickly glanced at Paragraph 2 and saw "dang-tang" and went, "Hmm, that sounds like "downtown" -- (A) it is..." then proceeded to see Labor Day's pronunciation and thought they were both classified as being transliteral.
Talked myself out of (B) after I had it selected for about 30 sec. I thought that (B) was a high-level trap AC -- reading the conclusion, I didn't think Robert's reasonableness had to be better, just that it had to be at least as good as Britta's. I guess I thought we had to assume that reasonableness could compensate for a worse "factual" performance
Argument: We absolutely must adopt this new code. Why? Well, for starters, the old one sucks -- it causes us to argue and toil about, which in turn leads to loss of the public's confidence...and we can't succeed without the confidence of the public. Also, it clearly works in that other country over there and is widely accepted in others.
Assumptions: This guy hasn't listed a single bad thing about adopting the new code, so I think it's safe to say that he assumes nothing bad will happen if they do.
Analysis: Wow...this guy realllllllly cares about the public's confidence -- and I think this is the trap. This is a premise, and as we know, attacking a premise doesn't really get you anywhere (a conclusion can still be true despite you dunking on one or two "facts" presented by your opponent).
Answer Choices:
A) Aimed at a premise -- basically, this AC is trying to say that the quibbling and arguing isn't 24/7. However, that doesn't really do anything to convince me that we shouldn't overhaul the code.
An example of this could be that I want to install an expensive storm radar in the town square to warn people of tornadoes. Someone says that tornadoes only occur once every blue moon. I respond with "tornadoes don't happen 24/7, but one or two of them is enough to cause significant damage and thus still warrants building that storm radar in the town square." Similarly, the council doesn't argue all the time, but one or two outbursts could be catastrophic.
B) Who's to say that this council will use the new code in this manner? This AC requires an additional assumption that they will.
C) This is correct because we're weakening the support rather than an individual premise or conclusion. Back to the tornado example....say somebody responds to my claim that we need the expensive storm radar: "Well, the nearby town has had 0 tornadoes ever and has agreed to give us theirs." This statement destroys the relevance of my premise-to-conclusion - there's no longer any need to go with my option. Similarly, there's no reason the council should adopt this new code because all of the problems associated with it will soon be solved (no need to waste time overhauling a complex system).
D) Classic premise-destroyer (sort of). Just because we refute one aspect of the council chair's argument doesn't mean his conclusion cannot still be true. Plus, he does give a firm stance on why it might actually be reasonable to do so in this case.
E) Directionally wrong -- this AC is advocating for adopting the new code, albeit very weakly.
We could even go so far as to refute this AC: Though the new code hasn't been heavily criticized yet, who's to say that it won't be later down the road? Like many things in the scientific, medical, and economic realms, the pros and cons of certain concepts may take a long time to manifest. Case in point: cigarettes.
@snew words here are key -- frosty regions bring about a risk of damage or destruction via frost, whereas the alternative can potentially seriously damage or kill pumpkins via fungus. I think we're meant to see the frosty regions as a clear-cut winner in this case, but it's still a good question and one that I had to take a leap at
This one had me for 1:51, but I was eventually able to POE my way to victory. In hindsight, here's the best way I came to think about this question:
Stim: So there's this picture-perfect region for pumpkin farming that would allow for pumps to be grown without the threat of winter frost. However, most pumpkins are grown outside of these picture-perfect regions and are subject to the frost.
Paradox: Why on earth are we avoiding these picture-perfect pumpkin growth regions (PPPGR, or P3GR, or whatever).
Considerations: I'd like to think that these farmers aren't stupid. Oftentimes, it's helpful to view RRE questions as missing a key puzzle piece -- like maybe I just don't have the full picture in front of me right this second, and the missing piece is somewhere in the ACs. Also, this AC better be good because, right now, these pumpkin farmers don't have me convinced; hopefully, one of them will point to a potential restriction or benefit that would explain why pumps are grown in the seemingly worse option.
Answer Choices:
A) Cool -- but that doesn't explain why farmers would risk the frost when the stim says it exposes them to potential "damage and destruction."
B) Dude, what? This makes it even more wild that the farmers choose the "frosty" regions to plant pumps.
C) This runs contrary to what we need. Pumpkins typically benefit more from longer growing seasons, and the stim tells us that, despite this, most are grown in regions with shorter seasons.
D) Ah, so farmers would rather expose their pumpkins to extreme cold (which we know presents risk of damage or destruction via frost) than to soil-borne fungus and disease (which we also know would kill the pumps). Now notice the highlights here -- the farmers are essentially weighting risk factors associated with the two regions discussed in the stim. This AC brings a compromise/benefit to the table; obviously, they'd rather choose an option that carries risk of damage and destruction compared to an option that will likely bring about certain death-to-pump (nice). I knew those farmers weren't stupid!
E) Oh hey, (E). You're wrong in the same way (C) is wrong -- why would farmers resort to seemingly worse regions (frosty regions) when this other powerhouse option exists?? (Knowing what D says, we can confidently answer this).
1) Author's Argument: Widespread food shortages are inevitable. Why? Well because we can only produce food at a certain rate, and eventually, this rate will cap out and will not be able to keep up.
2) Assumption: Keep up with what? It looks like the author assumes that food production rate and food shortages are linked and doesn't fully fill out his argument. I need an AC that will fill this potential gap, or one that at least strengthens other aspects that I haven't yet identified as relevant yet. Right now, though he doesn't explicitly state it, population seems to be playing a crucial "shadow" role in the argument -- if food production and population are related, I need a convincing mechanism to back that up. I'll be looking for it in the ACs.
3) POE/Hunt Mode:
A) Cool fact, but directionally wrong. If resources are renewable, why would I believe that a widespread food shortage is more likely to occur?
B) Similar to (A) -- feels a bit in the wrong direction and requires additional "reaches," like will everyone have access to this additional food supply? What does this have to do with the population growth the author is subtly hinting at?
C) Another potential weakening choice -- directionally wrong. We need an AC that points to population outpacing food production, not the other way around.
D) Another cool fact, but irrelevant to this case. How does this prove that they will happen again under the stim's conditions? BTW, I don't think I've ever seen an AC like this be correct on the test before.
E) Here it is -- our mechanism fully realized under a veil of truth that STREN/WEAK ACs provide us. This AC provides the gap in the author's argument. Here's how that argument might have played out IRL:
---
Opponent: Yes, I acknowledge the fact that food production will cap out eventually -- no single country would be able to compensate for the lack of production across the entire globe, and some country's production rates are actually failing. But the only way these shortages would occur is if population rates continue at the current rate, which is already pretty crazy to think about, no?
Expert: Well, studies do show that the population will continue to grow at least briefly when food production has reached its maximum level.
I find that I do this often on descriptive weakening Qs specifically: I'll effectively parse the argument and put the flaw in my own words only to stumble around trying to find the one that matches my prediction.
This one was especially frustrating because when I pulled up the video explanation, my prediction matched J.Y.'s verbatim. I did waffle away from (E) because I couldn't understand what it was saying during my timed take, but now it seems clear that I was unconvinced because I didn't take the time to digest what it was saying.
@danielsachs13786 I'm still at the stage where I'm still guessing on the last 7-8 Qs, so I expect a dip in total section score. But I went 13/26 on this one
P1: Vermeer used expensive props over and over again in his paintings
_____________________
C: He didn't do that because he lacked other props....
There's obviously a huge gap between P and C....luckily, most of these AC's die really quickly to POE (super irrelevant, out of scope, etc.). Here's what you should be looking for to attack this Q: Why should I believe the fact that Vermeer used the same props repeatedly but not because he didn't have others to display?
Correct AC: E) This AC is weird because it doesn't really sound like a good reason at all from the surface....and it's hard to make sense of it. However, in true P > C fashion, it makes complete logical sense.
Let's look at this again:
P1: Vermeer used the same props over and over again in his paintings (some were expensive props)
(E): If the reason he used the same props over and over again was because he lacked other props, we wouldn't see any expensive props in his paintings.
_____________________
C: He didn't use the same props over and over again because he lacked other props....
Essentially, we know he has some expensive props that appear in his paintings. (E) serves to cover a potential weakness in the author's argument -- the idea that one reason for the repeated use of props is because he doesn't have any others to display. (E) says "No, because that were true, we wouldn't see any expensive props in his paintings, and we do (according to the stim). So instead of providing an alternative explanation, the author just rules out one possibility, which is stated in the conclusion.
Here it is folks:
My man says that every owner of this type of car will be able to drive it 300,000 miles because a few (some) people have driven that type of car 300,000 miles.
Took me 2:20, but POE is king.
A) Didn't see any of this going on
B) Didn't see any of this going on either
C) No circular reasoning here -- premises are presented in support of a (bad) conclusion
D) Didn't see any of this going on -- the author pinpoints exactly what they think is happening (ex. temples vs tombs).
E) Survives the knife fight as there really isn't any good evidence offered up for support. In fact, the only evidence offered is "A is X and B is Y, so A and B cannot be related. Miss me with trying to explain to you why X and Y disqualify a linkage between A and B."
Before I forget, here's exactly what I was thinking during this question:
Conclusion: Improving letter writing abilities allows more room to maneuver in other intellectual activities.
Why? Kids who showed the most improvement in composition skills were the ones who improved their letter writing abilities the most "automatically."
Assumptions? Fluid composition is aided by automatic abilities in writing, and composition would qualify as one of these "other activities" that requires mental energy. 2 + 2 = 4, so learning to write letters automatically contributes to an improvement in composition.
This is so close to being an RRE question lol. Here's the stimulus caveman version:
Fish like coldest water; coldest water towards surface in winter, coldest water towards bottom in summer; cold and warm water flip positions in fall and late winter; so if fishermen want to fish lakes that are partially iced over in late winter (typically when cold and warm water flip positions), they should fish in shallow/surface water.
The RRE-esq paradox here is that we'd expect the fishermen to have the best odds of catching fish in deeper water during the late winter. This is because the temperature flip (turnover) occurs in late winter, causing winter rules to conduct a "shift change" with summer rules. But the stim's conclusion says that isn't what the fishermen should do. Rather, they should try for the surface. If that's the case, then we need something that will turn the "turnover" rule on its head, which (E) does for us.
(E), if negated, states that turnover (or the temp "flip") has occurred in this type of lake -- or in other words, business as usual, status quo, no change, etc... the rules apply. But we already know that doesn't make sense. The stim would have us believe that everything points to the fishermen needing to fish in deep water for the best chance to catch fish in the late winter. Late winter = turnover, where summer rules take over, and in summer, cold water is at the bottom. But turnover hasn't taken place yet in this lake, so winter's rules still apply (cold water is still at the top of the lake).
Another FUN paradox question (I hate these). Weirdly enough, wolves + flock of moosen = more moose!
Sick. What happened? Maybe the moose population grew lightsaber arms and could now fight the already lightsaber-wielding wolves, who eventually gave up fighting and became herbivores. Probably not.
I need something that will help explain why wolves are killing off the moose population but not at the expected rate.
A) This AC looks attractive at first glance, but it doesn't explain why the moose population continued to grow. Sure, it explains why the wolves prospered (0 competition for food), but wouldn't that make it even more likely for them to affect the moose population?
B) I do NOT care about other instances. The stim says "This is what happened/is happening, I don't care what the guys at Yellowstone are reporting."
C) Here we go. This is sort of a double-whammy home run - the wolves are killing off mostly sad, sick moosies, which would likely causes other moosies to become ill....which would also kill off more moose. Works.
D) Na dawg, what about the wolves? Did you even read the stim?
E) Cool fact bro, but this contributes $0 to my cause. This AC simply states a fact that, when applied to the stim, affects nothing.
It's been a while since I've had a MBF, and that combined with this subtle question stim had me fighting for my life.
On MBT questions, you take the stim's rules and apply it fiercely to the ACs -- nothing flies unless the stim explicitly allows for it to.
MBF are similar, but the away you approach them differs slightly. Instead of listening to that gut-reaction of "Hey, we don't know that," like you do on MSS and MBT, you have to use the stim's "rules" to find the AC that violates them. This means that the other four ACs absolutely could be true, or in other words, "Hey, we don't know that."
In this case, we know (D) has to be false because....well how else did the botanists know they were wrong? The stim states they were able to use DNA analysis, which qualifies as a technique for....etc.
TL/DR, find the AC that breaks the law.
Paradox: How did the fact that adding a prominent predator (otters) to the abalone's environment enable them to flourish? We'd expect them to be picked off by the otters and maybe go bye-bye all together.
Weird. So we need something that serves as a buffer between the two, like a third variable that would somehow allow the opposite of what we'd expect to happen. Or maybe the abalones actually developed an otter craving and also grew to be the size of large footballs during this time period. Probably not.
A) This AC is kind of a mix between "deepens the mystery" and "here's a cool irrelevant fact for you." They compete for the same type of food....but that just makes it even more wild that the abalones could dominate (less food available now AND it's not even a priority for abalones). Also, this just helps explain the presence of the otters.
B) Another "here's a cool irrelevant fact for you" AC. This doesn't change the fact that this specific instance still occurred in the wild.
C) Bingo - Here's our third variable/buffer between the prey and the predator. Whilst otters are known predators of abalones, they also branch out and eat the abalone's competition for food, which would make it easier for them to graze that sweet sweet ocean floor. This in turn allows them to mate much easier. I guess we have to assume that they can out-pace their attrition to otters, which is definitely a possibility given that they aren't the otters' only source of food.
D) Meh; this would make it less surprising if we knew the rate was 400,000 abalones produced per minute (gross). This also just presents "cool fact" with little to no impact. Knowing the difference between large and small species tells us nothing about how this specific instance unfolded.
E) Doesn't matter - this AC ignores the stim, which doesn't care which size of abalone the otters prefer. They're here now, so this AC just deepens the mystery - why are they bugging the small abalones in the stim if they prefer larger ones?
Flaw: Author assumes that because the company’s market shares went from 50% to 25%, there must be a decline in profit that comes with it (percentages/number confusion)
Caveman version: Say I run a taco stand, and last week taco’s made up 50% of my sales. This week, however, tacos only made up 25% of my sales. That doesn’t mean I sold fewer tacos this week — I could have sold even more than I did last week.
Example:
Last week: 100 tacos (50% of total sales; maybe this was a slow week for my food truck)
This week: 350 tacos (25% of total sales; maybe this was a huge week for my food truck because there was a food festival and I sold all sorts of goodies. Tacos were among many items I sold, but I just so happened to sell more Churros and sodas than tacos.
Honestly got this using POE, and the fact that the correct AC is (E) did not help my confidence, but knowing that the others violated what my conditional chain displayed helped.
Upon review:
SCQ > GA 6pm
ACQ > GA 7pm
If this is all we know, then we can eliminate most of the ACs:
(A) and (D) are essentially stating the same flawed concept. If we take the contrapositive of both chains, we only arrive at /SCQ and /ACQ -- these ACs also try to cross pollinate the chains in a way that doesn't work.
Once you eliminate (A) and (D), you realize that (B) and (C) also share similar mistakes. Both of these ACs make inferences we can't be sure of given the stim; if we say "/SCQ," there's nothing in the chain left to make any inferences. Same with "6pm."
That leaves you with (E), which requires you to think outside the box a bit. If SCQ occurs, we know it triggers the 6pm GA. And 6pm is the same as stating /7pm, which leads to /ACQ. Maddening, but hence why POE is crazy good on this question.