Hi. I have the same question. Why isn't it a necessary assumption that hairless dogs were not introduced to both regions from some third region? The conclusion is that hairless dogs were introduced from one region to the other. But if hairless dogs did exist in Spain, why couldn't the dogs have been transported to both regions from Spain?
@turnercm409, I'm lucky in that I do naturally a lot of what JY teaches here. The one thing I would probably change is that where JY says "feign interest" I "feign expertise." I read the passage as if I'm an expert, and when it says "some people argue..." I just immediately pretend like I already knew that and make it part of my own background, not just the passage's. I think it helps me internalize the passage if I have (newly adopted) opinions about its content.
@joegotbored149, Thanks! That's a really good approach and a good use of that time. I had felt like I was kind of aimlessly casting about in choosing which questions to review.
Hi, I know I am fortunate to have this problem, but I consistently find myself with roughly 7 minutes left to twiddle my thumbs on RC sections and am generally missing 0 or 1 questions. Nevertheless, I want to use those 7 minutes effectively to ensure I'm maximizing my score. What approach should I be taking with that time? BR?
I get this, kind of. To say that the dogs MUST have been transported from one of these regions to the other, necessarily assumes that the dogs weren't imported from some third region. I suppose the frustration is that (A) is a sufficient assumption to support that necessary assumption. Just frustrated. Thanks for the response.