the reason why I did not pick b is because its says many more. Many is almost equivalent to some it could mean there was one more low budget movie or a 100 more low budget movies than big budget movies. That was not clear therefore I did not pick it
Hello, I was wondering is this under timed or untimed conditions. If you are getting most questions right untimed , then you understand the reasoning and your approach is right. The timing will come with more practice.
Can someone please draw ac C for me . The way I did is no introduces sufficient condition and you negate the necessary condition. The without causes us to negate the sufficient condition. So it should be : AC/----->SMAT/ #help (Added by Admin)
I am very confused about option B. I am confused because I don't understand that the statement " one cannot intend to spill a glass of water accidentally", is this a conditional statement. Is cannot a conditional indicator. If it is, how would I draw this statement?
#help (Added by Admin)
if spread of literacy informs people about injustices and leads to increased capacity to differentiate between actual reformers and opportunist, Then how can populace be vulnerable to clever demagogues after widespread literacy is established. These statements are contradictory. It makes no sense. #help
The" normally about half half of budget proposals get approved", throws me off. Does it have no bearing on the conclusion. Does it mean even this time, he will approve around half of the proposals? The answer makes sense to me but for some reason I keep thinking well he has to approve atleast half and therefore B is right.
#HELP
Did anyone take look at this question, why is the answer not C. It states that price of the reserve is set high enough to yield profit. That means that the seller will make profit on the item , hence the reserve price is needed for desirable item. Any thoughts?
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"
In this case, doesn't student body mean every single student? #help
Me too! I m interested
I don't understand how A strengthens the argument. Even if there were cosmic dust clouds before 800,000 years ago , the argument says that they have to dense enough to have effect on ice age,. So, maybe there were cosmic dust clouds before 800000 but they were not dense enough. Maybe there were or maybe there were not. It makes no difference cause the presence of cosmic dust clouds is not enough they also have to be dense .