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

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

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.

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.

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

based on the responses below, i get that AC D is incorrect bc teeming implies that the lake can still have unhealthy fish. if this stimulus had said "every lake nearby only has healthy fish", would that make AC D correct?

#help

focus: increases in productivity

we know that centralization causes productivity. but what if you reach a max of productivity using centralization? how do we have further increases? perhaps the answer is decentralize certain aspects. --> AC E.

key to answering this conclusion requires identifying what type of conclusion is made. in this question, the conclusion is a comparative statement about the effectiveness of an ad. It says that bc the network greatly misrepresents the show, it would be less effective than an ad released by the producers. what if the producers also released a misrepresentative or grossly interpreted ad? if they ran it, how are we to know that this ad would still be more effective in promoting the show than the network's ad? in this case, we don't know, and that's why AC B is the correct answer.

#help just clarifying is A ‑m→ B ←s→ C with the "inference" of A←s→C invalid?

#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

Thank you so much! As someone mentioned above, do you have a list of cookie cutter arguments?

in order to answer this correctly, one needs to differentiate between the two groups the author is trying to connect. 1) small dramatic studies reported in the news 2) small dramatic in general.

the argument is flawed bc the author is trying to extrapolate the proportion of small dramatic studies in the news to making the assumption that small studies are dramatic in general. You can't do this without knowing how many of the small studies are dramatic relative to the entirety of small studies out there. For example, if the news reports that there are 40 small dramatic studies out of 1000 small studies in general, then the proportion of small dramatic studies is 4%. you cannot say that the majority of small studies is dramatic, bc 4% is definitely less than a majority of 50%.

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

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

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.

@ 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.