I am not understanding how D is the correct answer. I actually chose D before blind review, mainly as a gut instinct to look back over later. Upon blind review, I changed my answer to B.

I now understand why B is wrong, as all we know is that many municipalities will choose rent controlled ordinances for short term gain, but there is no way of knowing whether or not they will choose to repeal them when the long-term disadvantages set in.

What I don't understand is how D is not subject to the exact same flaw. I understand that we know that many municipalities will choose rent control ordinances, which in theory would eventually lead to a shortage of rental units, but how can we properly infer that each municipality in that group either does or will actually make it to the point of experiencing that long-term disadvantage? Isn't it possible that they will all repeal the ordinances before shortages become a problem?

Maybe the reasoning is because while it is possible that they repeal before the shortages arise, we should assume that, because they are entirely motivated by the short-term gains, they would not repeal the ordinances before the shortages arise?

If there is a better way of reasoning this out please let me know, thanks! I am probably overthinking this one....

Just took a PT and my pre-blind review score was almost full 10 points below my average. (Post BR was still around 4 points below by usual pre-BR average)

As I was taking this PT I could tell that I was really struggling to focus but I powered through because I want to make sure that, even if I am not at my best on test day, I am preparing for that. This has really stressed me out though- I'm scared that on the real day I will have another bad day like this and get a bad score, despite all of my hard work. I've been studying for over a year at this point and I've had some drops in score but never to this extent (I mean- this was lower than my diagnostic over a year ago!)

Needless to say, this has really shaken me. Any advice as for what to do next would be greatly appreciated.

I got this question wrong both before and after BR and the explanations did not help but I finally think I understand it so I wanted to help anyone still confused like I was!

Here is how I logically mapped it out (I,F, and U mean inviting, functional, unobtrusive)

I & F → U

Contrapositive: Not U → not I or not F

This is the rule which the stimulus says modern architects violate. To violate this rule it would be that it is NOT the case that (I & F → U)

In other words, in order to violate this rule, there must be some case in which there is I and F, but not U

This is where I got caught up, as I was thinking that they had only mentioned that the buildings were not functional, but had not mentioned if they were inviting- but that doesn't matter. For the rule to be violated, it HAS to be the case (MUST BE TRUE) that there is some case with I, F, and NOT U. The other details are unimportant, as the correct answer just focuses on one aspect of the conditions that must be met for this rule to be violated.

Let me know if anyone has another explanation that makes more sense, or if my reasoning is wrong at any point!

On this question I initially answered correctly, but then during BR changed to the wrong answer. I am beginning to understand why C is correct, but I still feel like I am not even 100% sure what the stimulus itself is actually saying.

Here is the stimulus:

The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, such as squirrels, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.

What's throwing me off is that I don't understand how "energy output available to perform this task" differs from "energy an animal must expend." I was also a little confused by the jump from talking about energy to speed (saying that this is why squirrels can run up a trunk at the same speed)- am I meant to interpret that as saying that it uses the same amount of energy? If so, is that in relation to energy output available or the amount that must be expended and how would I know that?

Thanks for any help in advance!

I encountered a question with an answer choice that said something like "companies are no more likely to do X if B than if A"

This feels like a riddle to me, and I am not exactly sure what relationship is established here. My best guess was that this means that if B, then X is either the same level or less likely than if A. Is that correct or is there a better way to interpret this relationship?