Self-study
Does anyone know if we're allowed to bring a thermos into the test if it fits into the gallon sized bag? I usually am drinking coffee all day, and am worried about crashing mid test if I don't have any for the break.
PT Questions
catherinecporto558
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
catherinecporto558
Monday, Jan 19 2015
would answer choice (c) work as a sufficient assumption?
catherinecporto558
Sunday, Jan 18 2015
Is it possible to buy tests 72 and 73?
catherinecporto558
Friday, Jan 16 2015
I went up from a 162 to a 177 today, and have been studying since late october. Definitely doable!
catherinecporto558
Thursday, Jan 15 2015
Does "many people" really establish correlation? Couldn't many people really just be a few people, depending on your perspective?
catherinecporto558
Thursday, Jan 15 2015
What is the purpose of the "Jackie has not previously cared for the Cruel Herd" part of answer choice (A)? Is it just to confuse us? To me, that answer choice seems to at once weaken and strengthen the question, leaving it as kind of wash. On the one hand, the manager swap supports the argument, but on the other hand, she has never liked them. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
catherinecporto558
Tuesday, Jan 13 2015
Does this mean that PT 74 will be available to people with the current Ultimate + plans? Or will we have to upgrade to have access to that test?
catherinecporto558
Sunday, Jan 11 2015
I don't see how option (b) is guaranteed by the stimulus. The way I see it, there are two some statements coming from Vitamin Fortified foods
1.) Some vitamin fortified foods contain 100% of vitamin A and B per serving.
2.) Some people overestimate the servings of vitamin fortified foods, and consume 2 or 3 servings
How do we know that these two statements intersect? There seems to be a large gap between (a) whether the foods that are overestimated in statement 2 are those which contain A and B; and (b) the VF foods consumed by consumers in statement 2 are those which contain 100% of these vitamins.
Essentially, couldn't all of the consumers who overestimate the serving sizes be eating only vitamin fortified foods that don't have 100% of A and B, and still be consistent with the premises?
catherinecporto558
Wednesday, Jan 07 2015
I agree. It seems to me that the causal relationship is pretty strong--the impact on comfort and ability causes the driver's seat to impact safety. Is this correct? Otherwise, I think I am understanding the fundamentals of causal relationships wrong.
The "observed phenomenon" part is interesting, but it seems very slight to be the entire source of error in that answer choice. Couldn't this conclusion be the result of an observed phenomenon?
catherinecporto558
Thursday, Jan 01 2015
i think the "if she reasonably expected the action would cause damage" is somewhat a gap in the argument, however that gap and the additional gap of payment is bridged by only answer choice a. Whereas answer choice d only speaks to the reasonable knowledge.
Additionally, the conclusion states that she should pay if she "could" have expected the column to cause damage. So, even if she did not in fact know that the column would cause damage, the assertion that she could have reasonably known still stands (making her actual knowledge of it irrelevant).
catherinecporto558
Thursday, Jan 01 2015
Can someone compare this question to PT 63 section 1 number 10? That is a similar sufficient assumption question, in which the conclusion is a typical: "if X, then Y". Remembering this question, I thought that the in PT 63 would be "X," however that choice is somehow insufficient. Is there some difference between these two questions that I am missing?
catherinecporto558
Tuesday, Dec 30 2014
is the contrapositive of (a) EW or EP --> /S ? If so, that seems to more clearly eliminate answer choice a, since the argument is saying that they have no bearing on the band's success, and the formal logic is saying that either guarantees not being successful.
catherinecporto558
Tuesday, Dec 30 2014
I think I have found the answer to my question. I was translating (e) to formal logic as: if some NOT mislabel, then the Stark sweet Melody variety is suitable for tub/pot...and therefore thinking this was equivalent to the formal logic of choice (b). However, the negation of "Some" must be "None" to be: "if no nurseries mislabel this variety of tree, the SSM tree is suitable for tub/pot" or alternatively, "if the SSM is NOT suitable for tub/pot, some nurseries mislabel" (the more intuitive way to translate which I did not choose initially)
is this correct reasoning?
catherinecporto558
Tuesday, Dec 30 2014
I'm a bit confused as to why (b) is incorrect. The premise states that while some label the plant miniature, others do not. Therefore, wouldn't it be correct to say that some of the nurseries (namely, those that do not label the plant as miniature) correctly label the plant only if it is unsuitable to grow in a tub or pot?
catherinecporto558
Saturday, Dec 06 2014
I chose D because Hampton's statement only solves the agriculture problem of feeding the booming population. But there will still be more land needed for urban areas/housing, which leaves less room for wildlife habitats and forests. Can anyone explain where the flaw is?
I thought C was wrong because it's possible that they agree how much leverage is lost, but David thinks little leverage insufficient while Lin thinks what is left is sufficient. Does anyone know why this is incorrect reasoning?