Subscription pricing
I halve been drilling for 2 months and I only improved by maybe 3 points. How do you approach inference, MBT and most strongly supported questions on the RC. I find it easier for LR than RC. How do I improve? Please.
It’s giving me nightmares
The premise is: Houses that had Air Conditioning and lacked High ceiling+ thick walls CORRELATED selling well after WW2
Conclusion: Air Conditioning CAUSED changes in houses by having no High ceiling+ thick walls
Our job is either to provide alternate explanation that is compatible and supported by the premises or weaken it by reducing the plausibility of the author's argument by messing up the relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
E) The timing of the introduction of the new thermal technology is great which makes this AC next level attractive. I think the problem with this AC is that it does not follow from the premises and can be compatible with the conclusion. It would have been correct if the stimulus had said "changes were attributable ONLY to air conditioning". And with E we are failing the necessary. However, this is not a if-then statement but a causal statement.
Analogy: reduction of life span of people year 2080 onward is mainly attributed to people smoking everyday. Why? Because after 2080, people found smoking cool and it became a trend. [seriously hope not]
E) Soon after 2080, people stopped exercising.
Smoking can still be the primary cause and not exercising be a secondary cause.
C) This one is saying that you know what, your correlation was right but your causation wasn't. You are saying Houses (A+B) Corr selling well, so Houses(A) Caused selling well. But no, it's actually Houses(B) were already causing selling well.