Can someone explain why (d) in Question 27 is incorrect?

#help (Added by Admin)

I think another way to get rid of (D) in question #20 is to note that the question asks about the argument laid out in the first paragraph of (B). (D) comes up only in the second paragraph.

How about taking another one (June 2007) and average the three scores?

I am unsure about Question #8 answer choice (B). I got this question right, and I see why (D) is the answer, so I am not interested in knowing why (D) is a better answer choice than (B). But what I am interested in knowing is this: the passage states the "researches developed a list of hypothetical situations made up of TWO of the congruent factors." They "asked the students to determine the third factor AND to choose which mix of language. . . they would use in that situation." However, (B) is a situation where the students are given all three factors and choose which mix of language they would use. In hindsight of the tests, we know the answer to the question that (B) poses, but I don't think (B) is the question to which that the linguists sought answers. It had three factors already determined, not two.

Thanks for your feedback in advance.

Daniel

The first task is to figure out what the antecedent argument might have been. In the stimulus, the first claim is that the question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is too imprecise; the stimulus gives a reason that supports this claim (“because we are not sure . . .”). The second claim is that we cannot define the term in more precise way because doing so would hinder us from finding and recognizing intelligent life elsewhere (“since it is likely . . .”). I think it’s best to imagine the antecedent argument as claiming that we should define the term “intelligent life” in more precise way in order to make the question whether intelligent life exist elsewhere is too imprecise. We can imagine this from the two claims made in the stimulus. The first claim concedes that the question is too imprecise, but the second claim denies that defining it in a more precise way is a good idea. The reason is that it would hinder us from doing what we wanted to do: finding and recognizing intelligent life. Hence, “counterproductive.” So (D) would be the right answer. Let me know if this makes sense.

For #24 (E), how should I understand "empirical implications"? What distinguishes empirical implications from other implications?

For #21 (D) and #26 (B), these wrong answer choices mention "high-meat diet," which was never mentioned in the passage. I take it that test writers were hoping that some of us would misread "raw-meat diet" as "LOW-meat diet"?

Which PT did you take? If it's an earlier one, you may want to consider taking a more recent to better gauge where you are. In my case, my first two PTs (35, 36) were early 170s, but then, my score dropped to early to mid 160 for a long time until it eventually went up. It may be just me, but different styles of the exams from more recent ones can harm/benefit you depending on your particular sets of strengths and weaknesses.

@.place

I think it's either timing or certain vocab or expressions that the test-writers assume that we all know. I majored in philosophy in college.

which section is it?

same issue here :(

In the same boat :(

You may also want to consider the following method: Go to “problem sets” on this website. Pick a topic (for instance, science) and work your way up from the “easiest” to the “hardest.” For instance, do two from each level of difficulty from the easiest and gradually work your way up. For the extra time I need, I simply time myself during the blind review to get a better sense of the time it would take me to complete a passage and the questions. After completing each set, be sure to thoroughly review before you move onto the next passage. In my case, I was doing okay for the easiest and easier. By the time I got to the medium, I was struggling with time and somewhat with accuracy as well. So I did two easiest, two easier, and 4 medium yesterday. Tomorrow, I plan to do 2 easier, 3 medium, 2 harder. You get the idea.

I simply go to "problem sets" and create my own section. Perhaps someone has a better idea?

Same here!

@ I do think that the exam style slightly changes and it takes some getting used to. But you should be able to adjust relatively quickly. Best of luck!

Hi, I got this question right, and I see why it is the best answer choice, but I want to ask something about the meaning of counterexample. The principle given is "All is well that ends well." Can we rephrase this as "everything that ends well is well." To disapprove this, we need something that ends well but is not good, satisfying the sufficient condition but not the necessary condition. The illustration given does not satisfy the sufficient condition, so I do not think that this is a counterexample. It is just an example that is outside the domain of this principle.

Thanks so much!

@ I have the same question!

How should we understand "evolves at different times"? Does it mean that each species developed the same type of organs(like eyes) at different times? If so, the fact that they developed them at "different times" is not a significant fact in the argument? What's important is that they each developed similar things, right?

#help (Added by Admin)

Thank you! I am curious about those who teach the rest of the courses that are available in the site. I do think it's a fair piece of information to have available on the website since instructors are often one of the most important considerations when choosing a course.

Anxiety is probably a big factor. But also, have you been practicing with the most recent ones?

Hi J.Y.,

I am very much interested in these courses. But do you mind sharing some information of those teaching the courses?

Thanks!

I see another problem with (C). Notice it's written in the present perfect tense: "Sea creatures HAVE rarely, if ever, wreaked. . ." The stimulus, however, says, ""where they CAN wreak ecological havoc." So we cannot infer "have wreaked" from "can wreak." The possibility of wreak havoc may remain even if it never happened so far. (C), therefore, assumes too much. Thoughts?