I think the analytics currently show my overall accuracy across all drills I've ever done. The problem is that if I improve, my stats barely change because they're weighed down by all my past mistakes. It would be more useful if the analytics showed my accuracy over just the last 2 weeks instead, so I can actually see my recent progress.
This is why you always read the question first, so you don't do more than you need to.
I read this wrong. I skipped over "which the critics acknowledge" and didn't realize there was support.
I noticed that there's option to predict admissions for undergrads that don't have a gpa (like international or pass/fail programs). Is there any way to predict for these degrees, and if there is can 7sage add it? Also, how does not having a gpa affect admissions?
The stimulus says a (bad teaching ) causes b (student failures) . Answer d does not. D say a (lack of productivity) correlates with b (complaints). Nowhere does (d) explicitly say a causes b. So if they have different structures, how can they have the same flaw?
"Acme claims it is not liable because it never realized that the knee-level switches were a safety hazard" to dispute this claim all we have to do is prove they realized its a safety hazard, even after the crash. But E says it was to prove they knew this before the crash. Why dont we need to just prove they knew about it after the crash to make them liable?
We have no way of knowing B is true. "The problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity" is saying all the time the problems should be viewed with all it's complexity. Madden says only usually simplifying leads to oversimplification. But there are times when viewing the problems without all their complexities are not oversimplifications?
Another problem is that just because industrialists oversimplify when they simplify, it doesn't mean simplifying is sufficient for oversimplifying. The industrialists could be simplifying more than they should, which leads to oversimplifying. But where does the passage say simplifying a tiny bit is always bad? #help
Advice: if youre not sure what the flaw is, it's probably confusing necessary and sufficient conditions
@ConnerKline it is a comparative claim. Saying most snacks are bought by children is saying children buy more snacks than non children. Why isn't this comparative?
The shareholder and stakeholder theories aren't arguing about the goals of business. Both agree a CEO should maximize profits. All the stakeholder theory is saying is that acting in moral interest can achieve this goal.
@azurijonathan863 you don't need to know laws. All you need to do is assume that it's not a law.
How do we compare the level of support? In both b and c there were logical assumptions to make that were needed to be true.
Why can't this paragraph be arguing for illustrations? It's explainimg why they're better, cause they don't confuse the jury.
D should be wrong cause it talked about the way free will was perceived in Greek society, which implys the general view. But the view that this playwrighter had doesn't need to reflect the views of Greek society? While the passage might be proof that this view was emerging in Greek society, it may still not reflect the view of Greek society as a whole.
D should be wrong cause it talked about the way free will was percepted in Greek society, which implys the general view. But the veiw that this playwrighter had doesn't need to reflect the views of Greek society? While it might be proof a view that was emerging in Greek society, it can still not reflect the view of Greek society as a whole.
@arose maybe (c) doesn't say it's more likely that $ -> laptop, just that the evidence is also consistent with it.
(c) says the argument should have realized it's more likely that getting payed more caused them to have a laptop than vice versa. How are we supposed to know it's more likely?
Its pretty simple, its only casual if the cause of something is explained. Saying "people who smoke die early" is not saying why they die.
@FInChatroom. The humanities are my worst subject, it's super boring and I don't care about it at all.
The passage says experts want to add digitalizing to the current list of prohibitions. So whatever the current list permits (copying for research) will also be allowed with the new things added to the list. Therefore A is correct, because unless the experts believe in also adding an extra prohibition for research on digitalized books then the law permits research.
@mh212529 I thought "private research" includes research and private study, because all studys are research. And the "or" isn't clear that "private" isn't also transferring to research, so it's possible that the passage means only private research is permitted and not public.
@arae thanks, I've never noticed the before.