I struggled with this passage big time, but once I got down what each one was really saying and B's relation to A, it was much easier to figure out. Leaving a note for Question 18. I was really stuck between AC A (irresponsible) and D (simplistic). I kept A on my blind review, thinking simplistic was too vague/neutral of a word.
However, to say something is irresponsible is to hint that there is a negative consequence associated with it. The author isn't necessarily suggesting that there's a negative consequence to Ricks' thinking, just that it's too conflated. In fact, A agrees with parts of Ricks' thought process but just think it's more complicated than he makes it out to be.
A defends this more.
Huge accomplishment! A 172 for an English speaker is a feat in itself, this is truly inspiring!
Also interested! Do you know which PT's you'd work through?
Hey there, I've been studying for about 10 months and have been stuck at a plateau in the high 160s, though I'm aiming for a 172+. I'd still love to be part of this group; in depth review and a focused group is exactly what I've been looking for. If possible, could I join? Email: ashahab1309@.com
FW
I'm game and would be down to help you create a more structured study group (e.g. maybe we take monthly PTs and BR em, etc). Is this for a certain score range group?
Okay so I'm envisioning clay bits from a duststorm moisten by the rain and clump up in the sand dunes where it prevents water from draining from the sand dune but doesn't prevent the sand from sliding. When the sand dune gets hit with rain, it blows a ton of sand debris like a sand avalanche/sandslide. Heavy rains cause the wet sand to come down the dune and then the fossils get stuck under this sand debris.
#help can someone help me visualize this more?
Okay so first thing's first, translating this wonky stimulus with hard aaaahhh science concepts to mess you up. We're saying that biological activity on Earth leads to a change in the amounts of these two kinda isotopes. We also have this new Martian rock that shows isotope ratios that are the same as ones found on Earth from BEFORE there was any life on Earth. Because of this, we're drawing the conclusion that there's no life on Mars.
But, wait, what if isotope ratios work differently in the Mars universe? What if something else affected the Martian rock that affected its isotopes? There's a bunch of gaps we could hypothesize here, but it's a weaken EXCEPT so we need an answer choice that will strengthen or make no effect to the reasoning of the argument at all.
A. this weakens bc we're providing support that life forms outside of Earth could have evolved and just have had a different effect on isotope ratios
B. this weakens bc it is saying there are external factors that affect isotopes (so we can't automatically assume that ratio means no life on Mars)
C. Correct. this strengthens the conclusion imo. this is saying is that the ratio stays the same. In the stimulus, we say that life causes ratio change. If there's no ratio change, there'd be no life that caused it. So this supports our conclusion that there's no life on Mars.
D. this also weakens because we're saying there are not THAT many Earth rocks that even show this ratio so it makes the evidence of finding the rock with the same ratio less strong.
E. this is weakening because it's saying there was a change in ratio which could be backed by the fact that there was life on Mars (basically opposite of C).
A takeaway for questions like this: if you find yourself spending more than a minute or so on it with no idea what to do, skip it, and come back to it once you have more time. Then focus on translating what the premise really says.
@mbaranovsky10, I hope this helped! If I messed up anything, 7Sage staff, please correct me!
This one was tricky. I first eliminated E thinking that the heirloom tomatoes dwindling CAUSED the tradition of passing down the recipe/the community networks to dwindle but it's the opposite. We have to make the inference that this is what kept the heirlooms gardening possible.
I put D originally but this is incorrect because it's not a direct cause of the heirloom tomatoes dwindling.
I could still use further clarification/support from the passage to cross out D and support E, if anyone has any thought! #help
Alrighty-roo, after visiting this question again, I'm going to take a crack at explaining it. Translated/simplified, this stimulus is saying: practical intelligence is an ability and skill to _ (we don't really need to care about the means to end part). If someone was never deprived of anything, they could never have practical intelligence.
Our conclusion talks about deprivation as a new element that's not in the premises and the premises talk about ability/skill that's not in the conclusion. So we need to connect the two in a way that'll help trigger and make our conclusion come true:
If someone is never deprived of anything--> then they don't develop that skill/ability on their own --> they can never have practical intelligence. That first part is the missing chain we need to make the conclusion come true.
Answer choice B fills in the gap and just makes it even broader. If we take the contrapositive of the missing chain, we get that skill/ability --> person is deprived aka needs something. B addresses that.
I think this explanation can be further simplified by just focusing on the conclusion and realizing C is not nearly as relevant as A. The conclusion is that it's unfair to cite people for the new fishing restrictions/they should get a warning. C doesn't make it more likely that it's unfair to cite people.
#help could anyone try to explain this question in a more simple way? Really struggling with this one.
Hey there fellow 7Sagers! Seeking advice on how to make the jump from mid 160s (averaging 164 on PTs) to the low 170s (170-173) in three months. I started off at a 138 and have been studying for about 7 months now. I work full-time and can dedicate about 10-15 hours of studying realistically each week. I definitely think it's possible but wanted to hear if anyone made the jump in a similar timeline or anyone has any study plan ideas.
Would you mind actually sharing your study journey? I started off at a 138 and am now PTing mid-high 160s and just can't break that 170. Would love to hear tips, study timeline, etc!
I think anymore than 3 PTs can lead to severe burnout-- what are you currently PTing at? Unless it's 170s+ I think comprehensive review of each PT (e.g. blind review then go over all your mistakes by ruling out why the ones that are wrong are wrong, redoing LG, etc) is much more important than trying to squeeze as many PTs as possible! I'd recommend 3 PTs max with thorough review and then no more than 1-2 a couple weeks leading up to the exam to prevent burnout.
I also chose C at first, thinking it was necessary for the argument. However, wouldn't another reason it's wrong be that C claims that to heal --> focus on positive change in relationships. C is emphasizing that those who focus on that change will have some relief/some healing. That's an incorrect contrapositive.
#help can anyone provide a simpler or other way they thought this through? I'm also not fully grasping how the analogy part of the premise has a stronger/bigger flaw to point out (second flaw described) then the premise not being true (first flaw described).
(A) totally misconstrued this by thinking that funding to fire department = financial damage.