- Joined
- Nov 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
How do we the know the discrepancy is why tt has worse food even though it's more popular, maybe the discrepancy is that it's more popular even though it has worse food?
#help
"vanilla is known to be less complex" doesn't mean vanilla actually is less complex, it means everyone thinks it is
@0seanthomas the passage lists a bunch of problems with the old view and says benthams reforms solve them. We might not see the author endorsing the reform, but the author definitely acknowledges it's benefits.
@MeganCavallaro the passage groups 2 types of people, first those constantly aware of human fragility, and second, those not. The second by definition is everybody on earth besides those in the first. If it would've said "those constantly not aware of human fragility" then you would be right.
The author seems to assume that even if all humans were allergic to it, that wouldn't be a reason to think it evolved as a defense against specifically humans. So once the argument is assuming this, it doesn't make a difference that even most people aren't allergic.
@ccmctaggart110 they were asked "how much they would be willing to sell the mug for". It sounds like they had a choice whether to sell it or not (meaning keep it). They had to be willing to sell the mug.
Another point is that maybe you don't need to read it as given to own, it's possible iteant either way. But at the end of the day, you can resolve the problem if you do read it that way.
Maybe the dog that didn't get a treat actually acted like normal dogs. The only reason why he was worse than the other dog was cause that dog listen more cause he got treats. So we dont know if unfairness cause a dog to act worse or if treats make a dog act better. This is d, so why usnt it correct?
The use of the medication only contributes to the development of a worse chicken pox. Not necessarily is this a direct side effect.
More traffic makes cars drive slower, which will cause less fatalities. This is more reasonable than E, we have no reason to assume this year will be different than last year.
Why isnt A correct, it has 2 flaws. The first, that people who live there are on average smarter, not just born there. The second, just cause on average they're smarter doesn't mean every individual is smarter. This second flaw is whole-to-part flaw, why isn't this correct?
How can we assume that there's only instinctual and flexible? Maybe there's a third type.
This has a important answer to remember. The answer isn't sufficient to validate the argument, but it is necessary.
I would assume it's ai. You can probably build these games pretty quickly with claude by yourself.
You need to realize that the seeds need sunlight to germinate and not just light (moonlight for example). If the seeds germinated with any light, then even if they were plowed at night they would still be exposed to some (non sun)light. If that's true, then b would be correct, not plowing wouldn't expose it to any light, while plowing would expose the seeds to some light.
The statistician us actually making a flaw. If we have 1 study with 1000 people and another with 1100, can't we just combine the results. So it's as f there was a study with 2100 people.
I got it right without understanding a word of it. I figured the argument had a premise but was missing a conditional statement for the premise to do anything. E was the only answer that was a conditional statement, so it was the only answer choice that had the possibility of working.
I think the main thing is to understand the concepts, that conditions go in one direction and not the other. For some hard conditional reasoning questions you will need to map it out though, especially in match the argument questions.
Dostoyevsky says you need to be a good artist to achieve your goals. This doesn't mean that you aren't a good artist that your art cannot unintentionally represent perspective. Because maybe you tried to serve one political veiw, but with bad writing served a different one. Therefore (a) isnt good, because even a bad artist can unintentionally serve a certain political view.
Why is b missing the comparitive aspect while e isn't? None of them say anything about people who don't eat nuts.