@dornamova17317 said:

just got off the phone with them and they said that the testing is still set to happen, but they have no status on whether or not they will have power..

Them as in the hotel or LSAC?

Hi @tarasivaskandan481 yes Marriott in Walnut Creek. I have no further updates, but will call tomorrow morning ASAP. I’ll post on here when I can.

@amyperia615 how similar is the beta testing here on 7sage to the actual digital test?

#help

I took "more likely" as a probability/percentage rather than a whole number. Would a whole number usually be the case for "more likely"? Thanks

#help how do you identify if something is a throwaway statement?

tricky question if you don't read the first sentence carefully.

In order for C to directly attack the premise, it needs to explicitly say that blinking is a feature that contributes to politicians' ability to perform well. For example, if someone were to ask you, "what is a characteristic that you consider contributes to a politician's performance?", your response would have to be, "blinking".

In the case of AC C, it's not directly attacking the premise. Instead, it's just making blinking relevant to the premises. For example, if your subconscious tells you that "this person blinks too much, therefore their confidence must be low", your response to the above question would be "confidence", but you wouldn't say it's because of blinking.

Hope that answers your question :)

knowing how huge the genome is, insertion of a hepnavirus has many possible outcomes. thus, if insertion occurs at a random spot, the probability of 2 two species having a hepnavirus in the same location but due to different ancestors is low.

questions like this remind me that I really need to read the AC carefully.

@taschasp823 thanks for your reply! I appreciate it :)

i think this is confusing because the 2 group indicators are right next to each other. typically, when we see a sentence with both, the indicators are separated by a few words.

we know that this sentence is:

"Yet not until teacher have the power to make decisions in their own classrooms can they enable their students to make their own decisions."

the 2 groups are 1) teachers have the power (TP) 2) students are enabled (SE)

the sentence can be read as "until teachers .. decisions, students are not enabled"

-for sake of simplicity, let's use the first group as the sufficient , and the second as the necessary.

if you want to use "until" as your indicator:

TP --> /SE

apply group 3 indicator: /TP --> /SE (contrapositive: SE --> TP)

if you want to use "not" as indicator:

/TP --> SE

apply group 4 indicator: /TP --> /SE (contrapositive: SE --> TP)

are are 2 confounding variables that make it difficult for us to determine the decline in some amphibian species. these variables 1) industrial pollution 2) natural variations

AC A: amphibians declining cannot be part of group that are not experiencing fluctuations due to nature. if they are part of this group, then we can rule out natural factor variations which leaves only pollution as a factor. essentially, the negation of AC E wrecks the argument bc it removes the confounding variable of natural factors.

AC C is correct bc it shows that the graduate students can have teaching positions unrelated to funding their education. if this is correct, it takes away the "solely" factor that the administrator uses.

The argument concludes that an individual who watches TV will have an increased tendency of thinking in oversimplified terms. In the case of AC A, if an individual watches both TV and reads the newspaper, who's to know if TV watching increases the tendency to think in certain ways? The reading of the newspaper might have a net increased in thinking or it might not. Basically, too many confounding variables cannot prove a valid conclusion.

rule of thumb: always be sincere to your true feelings

exception: if you're talking to another person, and you believe that the person you are talking to prefers kindness to honesty --> /sincere

AC E: correct answer because having no opinion is not the same thing as having a belief of what the other person would prefer. thus, shayna is not in the exception, and she must always be sincere to her feelings.

AC B: incorrect answer. just bc daniel has a preference, doesn't mean shayna has a belief of that preference. we don't know what she believes. thus, we can't make a conclusion that shayna should be insincere.

careless reading made me pick AC B. Just as JY mentioned, i thought the AC B was referring to a typical largeco shopper, not a largeco shopper that goes for milk.

really confused about this question. is it the falling apart, as a result of UV exposure, that allows for the scientists to detect that methane is in the atmosphere?

#help

10A is incorrect because "advances in artificial intelligence" is not the same thing as a "new discovery". Advances imply that something is already present.

AC A: we don't know if the conditions in AC A fail the sufficient conditions bc the non-children books on loan can be outside of the 3 overdue books.

i had this same concern, but the thing is, it's not necessary for us to know when every single diesel truck was sold. for example, we don't need to know that one diesel was sold in 2015, 2 in 2017, the rest in 2018 vs all sold in 2018. why? it's bc are argument isn't focused on when the diesel trucks were sold by. rather, it's focused on whether or not the new trucks are diesel.

with AC D, we're essentially locking the NT in a time frame in which they can't be sold. if they weren't sold in the years prior to last year, that means they only have the option of being sold last year. however, the stimulus tells us that none were sold last year either. thus, we can infer that none of the NT trucks were sold since the time they were purchased. if all the diesel trucks were sold last year (or by last year) and none of the NT were eligible for sale, that means none of the NT were within the group of diesel trucks. Thus, we know that the NT cannot be diesel. Bc if they were, they would have been sold by last year. But that contradicts the condition of 1) no NT were sold last year.

was on a knitting binge when i took this test, so my biases caused me to have tunnel vision.

if you're a wool farmer, you're not limited exclusively to selling wool. you can sell mutton, sheepskins, etc, in addition to wool.

we know that during this time period, the total amount of money earned from selling wool (domestic + international) for an Australian sheep farmer family increased. this is due to the increased wool prices on the international market in comparison to domestic. furthermore, the family sold more wool internationally than domestic. with this info, one can conclude that majority of the income made from selling wool came from international markets.

paradox: despite increased wool income, why didn't the family experience a proportional increase in prosperity?

- what if the wool selling is only a portion of total sales? what if the family also sold mutton, sheepskins, etc? what if these items had a sharp decrease in income earned?

- this explains the paradox by showing that the income earned from selling wool balanced the decrease in income earned from selling other items. thus, total prosperity did not increase.

really frustrated that i missed this question due to my tendency to skip words/read too fast. i really need to work on that.

chocolate:

low fat = regular fat

vanilla:

low fat < regular fat

hypo: people have no preference in chocolate, despite differing fat levels, bc chocolate is complex. we believe that the complexity masks fat taste differences.

gap: is vanilla just as complex as chocolate?

AC C: incorrect bc it doesn't answer whether or not vanilla is just as complex.

AC D: if vanilla is less complex, we can assume that the taste difference is due to the decreased masking of the fat taste differences that chemicals provide.