Subscription pricing
Anyone else working at least 10 hours/day while studying? How are y'all coping?
PT Questions
doh9328431
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
doh9328431
Tuesday, Oct 03 2023
Does your situation apply to all cases? It's very unlikely. That's why A works.
doh9328431
Wednesday, Sep 20 2023
No, you don't know if the statements were actually false or not. They were simply told that the statements were false. That's it. Furthermore, that's actually not important. What's more important is that you don't know how much later they were told this information.
doh9328431
Friday, Sep 01 2023
Your understanding of what the "goal of a conclusion" is subjective; a conclusion doesn't have to necessarily make the argument as solid as possible. It is simply a conclusion. Whether it is solid or not is irrelevant because we are not evaluating the strength of a conclusion
doh9328431
Friday, Aug 25 2023
You're missing a huge part of this argument: what connection is there between being an aristocrats' descendants to snobbery? The argument assumes that those people must be motivated by snobbery, but on what grounds? B doesn't work because it plays into that assumption. The argument isn't saying that people motivated by snobbery can't be motivated by legitimate whatever; it's saying that because of who they are they are motivated by snobbery.
doh9328431
Friday, Aug 25 2023
The argument is comparing stats of triple-trailer trucks from some highways in the western area to the national average. B picks up on the fact that the comparison might not be painting a fair and accurate picture of the situation.
doh9328431
Thursday, Aug 24 2023
No it doesn't. The point is that although red cars are involved in more accidents, it is reckless drivers' propensity for red cars that leads to that correlation. By no means is it that red cars are the ones responsible for more accident. If that's the case, then banning red cars would not have the effect the stimulus claims it would have.
doh9328431
Thursday, Aug 24 2023
You don't know if it is continuing to decrease today. You know that it has decreased, however because the stimulus says so. Thus, the situation we have is: Cheaper price of surgery-->More people getting the surgery-->Higher costs overall. How can this be? The cost of surgery must offset the savings generated by the reduction in the price of surgery.
doh9328431
Friday, Aug 18 2023
I'll try to take a crack at this, but I've been at work for 14 hours so forgive me if I'm not entirely correct or coherent.
Why should I take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing its value the scientific value? Because alchemists, a group who were shady, played a significant role in the development of chemistry.
What does the fact that a shady group had a role in the development of chemistry have to do with the value of chemistry? Since it isn't otherwise specified, let's just think of chemistry as stated in the argument as chemistry in general. Thus, the value of chemistry as presented in the argument is its value as a whole. When evaluating that, it should be natural to consider the impact chemistry has today as well as the past, or else you risk not evaluating chemistry's value accurately.
The fact that the argument mentions chemistry's shady origins seems to be indicating that the argument is trying to imply that the value of chemistry has been somewhat tarnished due to the fact. At the very least, the only way this information can be of relevance is if the alchemist's influence and all the shady business still persist in the present day. But do we know if that's true? Just because those folks had some influence in the past, does that still hold true today?
Furthermore, we might not even be talking about the same "chemistry." What the alchemists had a role in was in the development, but we don't know how different chemistry is today. What if chemistry today is radically different than whatever early version of chemistry the alchemists influenced? Why should we consider the alchemists' alleged contributions?
doh9328431
Friday, Aug 04 2023
It's a little confusing, but what you thought was the conclusion heavily implies the actual conclusion. Of course, it is reasonable to assume that if there is no reason to think that scientists will be any more successful in the future then finding aliens will be a dream. But, those two statements don't necessarily mean the same thing. Think of it this way: what you thought was the conclusion is sort of like an unfinished sentence. We have a pretty good idea how you're going to finish that sentence, but until it's actually finished, it's unclear. There's also the possibility that the sentence doesn't go in the direction we predict it will. The actual conclusion in the stimulus is the part of the sentence we're waiting for. For what it's worth, whether you identified that as the main conclusion or the actual conclusion as the main conclusion, the answer choices are so out there that nothing but the answer can really be considered as possible.
doh9328431
Friday, Aug 04 2023
You can say that about "however" but not about "so." "So" is just a conclusion word, not a word that indicates a contrast. You are also correct that the argument is trying to go against the initial statement. However, your claim about the argument equating correlation with causation does not seem to be correct, especially in light of your comments about the argument trying to negate the initial statement. How does negating the initial statement lead to equating correlation with causation? The argument is trying to deny the existence of the correlation by pointing to a factor that is within the the considerations of the correlation. In short, you can have an outlier case like what the argument offers as evidence to deny the correlation, and have the correlation still be valid. After all, it's just a correlation.
doh9328431
Friday, Aug 04 2023
There is no relevancy to "to avoid feeling isolated." The phrase "to avoid" implies a suggestion of sorts. There is no such suggestion in the stimulus.
doh9328431
Monday, Jul 31 2023
That's a classic mistake. The stimulus talks about how chess probably contributed to academic achievement. Essentially, one thing can result in another thing. However, multiple things can have the same result, which is basically what how sufficient conditions work. In this instance, why would we care that something else can also trigger the same result? That's got nothing to do with what the stimulus is saying. As such, D is completely irrelevant.
doh9328431
Saturday, Jul 22 2023
The explanation for D is adequate from a logic standpoint. Additionally, D doesn't work because you know nothing about every person who considers vacation policy an important factor. All you know is that recent graduates consider it an important factor. D overgeneralizes, so it doesn't have to be true.
doh9328431
Friday, Jul 21 2023
It doesn't imply all workers. "Workers," in the sense that it's used, refers to a group. Not everything in the group has to adhere to something despite making a claim about the group, which means that there can be some workers who aren't affected by this. All that matters is that the group in general should be. C doesn't work because you're specifically pointing out a a subgroup within the larger group. In short, by designating it in that way, you're claiming that if you're a worker whose work is affected, then you must oppose technological progress, which doesn't have to be true.
doh9328431
Tuesday, Jul 18 2023
A has nothing to do with the fact that hard surfaces are better for runners than soft ones. What does it matter if you can only guarantee dry surfaces for indoor tracks?
doh9328431
Tuesday, Jul 18 2023
Conceptually and very loosely, you could probably say that they're similar. But what's the point in needing to think that they are interchangeable?
doh9328431
Monday, Jul 10 2023
It's not so much what the painting looked like at the end of the artist's lifetime as it is the fact that it is unlikely that the painting was tampered with so soon after the painter's death, implying that the painting wasn't tampered with.
doh9328431
Monday, Jul 10 2023
What relationship do snakes have to lemurs? Just because they're predatory does that mean they prey on lemurs? What if light doesn't even make a difference for snakes? Who knows? Nobody does given what C says.
doh9328431
Wednesday, Jul 05 2023
Yeah, it doesn’t. All it says is that most were mined from Senegal because the gold there was 92% pure. What about the other gold they obtained? If most are from Senegal, where are the others from? Are they also 92%? AC D overgeneralizes.
doh9328431
Sunday, Jun 11 2023
You're also assuming that there is a possibility that Frederick's goal might not be incompatible. Just stick with what you know by limiting your knowledge to what's presented in the stimulus. If Frederick says "x," then "x" is all you know about Frederick. There is no "wait but what if there is also y..." If Frederick is out there saying art museums should do X, which is clearly different than what Elaine is saying, then that might be where they would disagree with each other. Just like you said, it could be the case that the works of recognized masters overlap with representing all genres. However, Elaine allows works that aren't recognized as masterpieces, whereas Frederick wants to preserve the greatest artworks only. I believe it would be reasonable to assume that those are two different types of artworks.
doh9328431
Sunday, Jun 11 2023
Sufficient-necessary flaw. C gets the order flipped.
doh9328431
Sunday, Jun 11 2023
It's not about being satisfied with buying the older identical product. It's about how they might see an improved version of the appliance but, when they go to buy it, they can't tell whether the product they're looking at is the improved one or an older model, which might lead them to purchasing the older version instead.
doh9328431
Friday, Jun 09 2023
Where do I even begin with this...there are so many weird things with A. "Whatever" is too broad. Doesn't have to be true. We're not making a generalization about all cases. Also what do we even know about the role of the psychological in the stimulus? Not much. Do we know that the behavior in humans is "purely" psychological? No. Just because they've taken over doesn't mean psychological factors are the exclusive cause. Furthermore, do we even know that there are no chemical explanations for the psychological causes? It could be the case that chemicals can trigger these psychological factors. The stimulus even says that humans still produce those chemicals anyways. Finally, A just misses the point entirely by focusing on the wrong thing. The main point of contention the researcher puts forth is that one thing is involuntary and another is voluntary. It just so happens that psychological factors are related to or within the domain of voluntary behaviors. This is clearly a bridging type of NA. I need to know why the voluntary nature of this behavior in humans makes it so that psychological factors have taken over the role. In that regard, A doesn't really do anything.
You should review pronouns. "Such" functions as a referential indicator. There is no connection to the moon and what is being referred to by "such." To be even more pedantic, "on" is a preposition, which means that it's merely a location indicator. Therefore, "on the moon" only serves to tell you where those colonies will be.