User Avatar
dancharasz340
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT135.S4.Q12
User Avatar
dancharasz340
Friday, Feb 23 2024

Still dont understand how the first sentence supports the last more than the other way around. How do you instincitvely take those middle premises to support the first sentence and then the third instead of the third and then the first. The only justification I see for the last sentence being the conclusion is "So" but directionally the otherway makes more sense going from specific to vague in a sufficiency sense.

PrepTests ·
PT136.S4.Q18
User Avatar
dancharasz340
Monday, Feb 19 2024

I like B as a wrong answer because you can just assume they're stupid for an explanation

PrepTests ·
PT131.S2.Q18
User Avatar
dancharasz340
Thursday, Apr 04 2024

tense definitely makes this a scam question. The general fact that something has increased over a specific period of time cannot change. Changing the timeframe does not change the fact of the period this sentence refers to.

PrepTests ·
PT131.S2.Q15
User Avatar
dancharasz340
Thursday, Apr 04 2024

I get that the word number makes c sound arbitrary but the argument criticizes the claim that "society can flourish" in anarchy merely by saying chaos or anarchy is unacceptable. I read C as saying it doesn't matter if it's acceptable for it to be true that society can flourish which makes sense?

Confirm action

Are you sure?