- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
i'm confused by this one because in the premise, it states that they are trying to SUSTAIN capital and not necessarily gain any which is why i chose D, is that it recognized that the laws didn't entirely prevent people from removing their investements, while B talks about additional investments which was not the point of the passage, the passage was just saying that the investment levels needed to be sustained.
so in the stimulus they are talking about "mammals" yet in the correct answer choice, they say the word creatures. shouldn't the correct answer choice say mammals instead of creatures? or does that not matter in this case?
I have a similar question to gladam0221. I'm confused about the last sentence, I read it as "if congestion decreases then profits will increase" congestion decreases--->profits increase. how is it flipped? when I chained everything out it looked like this:
COL → Consumers living DT → Increase Profits
Congestion Decreases → Increase Profits
IDK how to make the arrow point up into "increase profits" so I wrote it out as another chain. So I still got the correct answer from my chaining, however I see I'm still confusing the chaining and cant' see out congestion decreasing is at the end of it.
is there a difference between premise and context? or are they really just the same thing?
how important is it to identify the difference between sub-conclusion and a major premise? I understand the difference between minor premise, sub-conclusion/major premise and conclusion but put sub-conclusion and major premise as the same thing in my head.
what is confusing me is that answer A was the only one that had "large pharmaceutical companies" while the other answers just had "pharmaceutical company". wouldn't the word "large" be important in this context?
#help, so is B wrong. because it is saying that "it wouldn't be wrong" which is not the same as you should possibly or should not play a practical joke?
also did I miss a lesson on "embedding conditions"? this seems to not have been explained before
I don't get why answer b is wrong, I feel like when he got to the explanation of why it's wrong he just stopped and basically said it was wrong. could someone explain why? thank you!!!
I'm confused how answer choice E isn't correct. it's what she says verbatim in the text. I get that "some" is vague, but that doesn't seem to disqualify the answer. also how is the answer that the voters can't identify the political stance? how is that hinted at in this question?