- Joined
- Apr 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Hi, I’m looking for a budget friendly tutor to help me break into the 160s by October. I’m currently scoring 153-157ish range and really would like to get to the mid 160s. I am able to study full time every day with the exception of saturday where I only can for an hour or so. I’d say I struggle most with RC and resolve/explain the most. I’m hoping to find a tutor for a session or two a week until October with weekday availability and budget friendly pricing as I have the fee waiver. Let me know what you all have to offer, thank you!!
The thing that made this one easy was asking what if gentle provides a motive too? You can't infer that harsh criticism is the only way to get a motive
My key to answering this correctly was the strength of wording. I narrowed it down to B D and E. The difference between those 3 choices was that B and D use the wording must, and E uses might. In the stimulus it says "now the public at least might be able to participate". When in doubt, look at strength of wording
I too fell victim to this question for AC E. For those who do better reading than watching videos, here's how it finally clicked for me.
Principle:
R1 - exemplary record -> eligible
/eligible -> /exemplary record
The principle states that you are eligible only if you have an exemplary record.
R2 - save life + exceeded reasonably expected + this year -> should receive award
The tricky part about this rule is that it does not say that this is the only way to receive it if eligible. It only says if you satisfy this, then you should be eligible. This means there COULD be other ways to get the award if you are eligible.
Conclusion: Franklin should receive, but Penn should not.
Now on to AC:
A: Franklin has an exemplary record, but Penn does not. He also satisfied R2 which would properly draw the conclusion, so this is the answer.
B: Both have exemplary records. Franklin satisfies R2, but Penn does not. This doesn't explain why Penn should not receive the award. It only explains why Franklin should. So, this can be ruled out as there technically could be another reason Penn should receive it as R2 isn't an only if.
C: As neither have exemplary records, this should be easy to rule out.
D: We don't know the status of their records, so this is also an easy one to rule out.
E: Both satisfy R1. Franklin has satisfied R2, and Penn has not. However, just like AC B, we don't know if this is the only way to determine whether or not he shouldn't receive the award. So, this one is also ruled out.
I originally chose E after being down to B and E, but chose B in blind review.
What brought me to realize the answer was B was the wording. We don't know how big the sample size was, so the word "very small" is what led me to realize that B was correct.
I struggled with this one at first but it clicked in BR. Here was my thoughts:
D and E were easy outs. Whether wolves were held in captivity and the problems with more deer didn't explain how the number of deer was increasing dramatically.
C didn't matter as the number killed per year did stay the same.
B seemed appealing at first but I ultimately did rule it out as it didn't explain the increase
A was the right answer as if pesticides were affecting most wildlife living maybe it was killing more deer in the past. Without the pesticides, those deer aren't being killed anymore which explains the increase.
Originally chose E, but chose C in BR. Here was my thought process:
A- This isn't the assumption we are looking for. We aren't worried about feelings here, we're looking for the assumption as to why these passengers are safer on these planes than those that aren't equipped with it.
B- This doesn't really matter in this argument, so it was easy to rule this out.
C- I chose this in BR. If there are frequent warnings that are invalid, it would be important that pilots don't get into the habit of disregarding them. If they were to start disregarding them, they could miss a real warning that could lead to passengers no longer being safe. This would have to be true for the argument and conclusion to be correct.
D- Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. This doesn't really relate to the argument though as it wouldn't have to be true for the conclusion to follow so this was easy to rule out.
E- I did originally choose this at first. However, I realized that this wouldn't have to necessarily be true for the conclusion to follow. Yes, maybe it is the greatest risk, but it doesn't really lead me to the conclusion. So I ultimately ruled this out and chose C in BR.
I don't understand where in the stimulus to infer that the mosquito population increased? Do you just infer that based off of "had the very opposite of its intended effect."?
@jacksonjjazmine292 I got down to both A and D and what led me to ultimately choosing A was thinking about the actual principle in the stimulus. To me, D didn't make sense with what they ultimately were trying to argue in the stimulus. A had given a better principle as to why they would have the same punishment. When I come down to 2 answer choices, just asking why or how does this strengthen/weaken tends to help me a lot
Am I the only one who hates how these are setup? I like to try to come up with my own answers before seeing the full explanation and comparing thought processes to see how I can further improve mine.
Had a horrible time focusing on first attempt and got a 0/5. Took about 45 minutes to reset and came back to get a 4/5. Just a reminder to everyone to take a breather sometimes:)
I'll add my input-
To simplify the violinist argument consider this:
All violinists at NYP know how to play
Most who know how to play are not exceptionally good
Therefore, some at the NYP are not exceptionally good
This is giving us A -> B -m> C
So this is invalid as it's making C sufficient for A which is out of line with our diagram. For all we know there could be no violinists at NYP that aren't exceptionally good. This would lead to the argument being invalid as some is too vague and isn't supported
I fell for D, but after review here's my take on each answer
A: It doesn't imply this anywhere in the argument. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. This can be ruled out
B: We don't know if we're in control of our emotions or not, all we know is that the emotional tendencies haven't changed. So this can't be the answer.
C: Lessons of history? What? Easy to rule out as there's literally nothing in the stimulus about this
D: The stimulus doesn't give anything saying that we only choose based on emotions, maybe it is a factor but we don't know it's the only one. This is too strong to be the answer.
E: This has to be true as if it wasn't true then the argument would just fall apart.
I think this question is easiest by POE