While the explanation makes sense, I do not like this question. It seems to be a major assumption to conflate most viable chance of saving with most likely chance of saving. Saying something is most viable contains the idea that something is possible to do. What if the most likely thing to save the bears was to stop the loss of habit on their island; however, this requires international involvement, thus rendering it not viable? This is why I eliminated C, because I thought the language was too strong; whereas with E, while weak, did not require any assumptions.
Please let me know where my thinking is flawed. Would greatly appreciate it!
I chose AC E and was confused until I wrote out my own diagram. The argument goes as such
Because these tools 1) are 5000 years old 2) were found here 3) are used to make canoes today, then we conclude these tools were used here 5000 years ago to make canoes. In order for that conclusion to be true, the tools had to have been here 5000 years ago.
AC E would be more suited if the argument went something like this:
Because these tools 1) are 5000 years old 2) were found here and 3) used to make canoes then people made canoes 5000 years ago. This is a slightly different conclusion that requires the assumption that the tools could not have been used for anything else. I crossed out point 2 because it's not even needed to make this alternative conclusion.
Basically, because the author is making an argument about these tools used 5000 years ago in a specific place, they are assuming these tools were here 5000 years ago. Nowhere in the stimulus do we have evidence presented saying the tools were definitely here 5000 years ago.
For AC E, if there are other uses for the copper tools, it's an assumption they used them to build canoes. What if they only used them for the other task because they didn't know how to build canoes.
I choose E as the assumption because if there are no other uses for these tools, then sure, they used them to build canoes because they would have no other purpose. But if they had other uses, then how can we say they definitely used them to build canoes?
I'm studying while working full-time. I take the train to work and it's about 35 minutes both ways. Any recommendations on what I can do during this time?
I'm usually standing on a full train so writing anything is out of the question, but anything I could read or listen to that could help?
Personally, I only pay attention to target time on my PTs. In these practices, I have the luxury of having time to flesh out my understanding of the stimulus and the question choices. Taking my time here to genuinely understand the question will help me get faster in the future. When taking PTs, I'm simulating the actual test, so that's the only time I can get an accurate reading of how well I'm doing with time spent per question.
For me, it depends on the question. If the question was straightforward and I'm confident in my reasoning, then I don't watch the video. If the question was challenging and I was stuck between two choices, or maybe I don't understand why one choice was incorrect, even though I got the question correct, then I'll watch the video.
I crossed out B because I felt there was an implicit assumption on the number of old people. Just because old people are more likely to develop skin cancer, how can we know this explains the continued growth in skin cancer rates? What if there are very few old people?
I made the same mistake as you, and after the explanation, I realize the question has very tricky wording. I wish the video explanation emphasized this more.
You and I misunderstood the last sentence. The claim "the profits of downtown businesses will not increase unless downtown traffic congestion decreases" does not mean that "decrease in traffic congestion" → "profits of downtown businesses will increase". It means that "profits of downtown businesses will increase" only if there is a "decrease in traffic congestion" ie. profits of downtown businesses will increase" → "decrease in traffic congestion". Think of this analogy. Our hot dogs will not cook unless the stove is on. Does that mean that if the stove is on, our hot dogs will be cooked? No, it doesn't. But what it does mean is that, if our hot dogs were cooked, then the stove was on. In more proper terms, the idea "decrease in traffic congestion" is necessary for "profits of downtown businesses will increase", but it is not sufficient. Just like the stove being on is necessary for hot dogs to cook, but if the stove is on, that isn't sufficient to say that hot dogs will be cooked.
The prompt is saying that "more consumers downtown" → "increased profits", however, the only way for there to be "increased profits" is if there is also a "decrease in traffic congestion". Therefore, the prompt is subtly implying that because "more consumers downtown" → "increased profits", then it must be the case that "more consumers downtown" → "decrease in traffic congestion". Otherwise, it would be impossible for "more consumers downtown" → "increased profits". How does more people living downtown decrease the amount of traffic downtown? Not sure and it doesn't matter. We cannot impose our own understanding of the world here.
I made this mistake, but after rereading the sentence it became clear to me.
The sentence is explaining how "closely related morphologically" "some cultivators of corn" are to "sorghum" and how "closely related morphologically" "some cultivators of corn" are to "most other cultivators of corn".
The sentence here is comparing "sorghum" and "most other cultivators of corn". Hence why those are your A v. B here.
If you take "Some cultivators of corn" and "most other cultivators of corn" as your A v. B here, what are you comparing them against? Nowhere in the sentence does "most other cultivators of corn" get compared to "sorghum". Therefore, it becomes impossible to accomplish step 2 in this case.
A wise man once said "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".