Subscription pricing
I've been going in sort of a random order, because 1) I don't have time to go through eveeeeerything before test day, and 2) I'm trying to really focus on the areas I'm weak in. Should I be going in order instead?
PT Questions
francesanabelle72
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
francesanabelle72
Sunday, Nov 01 2020
I was wondering this, too. I think we're suppose to assume that nothing makes it through the Ice Age? Lol.
francesanabelle72
Friday, Oct 30 2020
Thank you for this :) really makes sense to me now
francesanabelle72
Tuesday, Oct 27 2020
#help I still don't understand how 14 is D. Wouldn't be incorrect for the colleagues to assume that it must be objective, not can? :C
I know that AC D is better than all the other options, but I can't convince myself of it.
francesanabelle72
Monday, Oct 26 2020
Honestly I was eyeing AC D for the longest, but ultimately settled on C even though I felt it was wrong :C
francesanabelle72
Monday, Oct 26 2020
samehere except I chose A. We'll get through this
francesanabelle72
Monday, Oct 26 2020
#help I have read literally everyone's explanation of AC B below, but I still cannot convince myself that it is 100% wrong. Can someone please try to explain this to me? :c
I feel like I'm getting it the more I read it, but I still don't see get it. The way I read it is that if children learn something, and then it changes down the line, they can adapt to the changes. So, it doesn't make sense NOT to teach them just because you think they won't adapt.
Oh... I think I see the issue now: it's not that Q is saying they won't adapt, Q is just saying that the reason for not teaching is because the tech will be obsolete. AC C is basically saying that "who cares if the tech will be obsolete, they can still use the skills/language they learn to learn the next thing, maybe even a little easier.
francesanabelle72
Sunday, Oct 25 2020
Is this the best way to approach comparative passages? I've never tried going straight to the questions first after Passage A, but now I'm thinking that might be a great idea...
francesanabelle72
Sunday, Oct 25 2020
Honestly I had the same thoughts as you, but I think the problem may be in assuming that the claim is made any weaker just because other people depicted in the painting could have painted it as well. Just because it could have been other people, doesn't weaken the fact that it still could have been the kid. Whereas, D gives a really strong case for why the claim could be wrong
francesanabelle72
Sunday, Oct 18 2020
Laughed way too hard at "my window broke, fuck it I'll just buy a new car"
francesanabelle72
Tuesday, Oct 13 2020
This kind of confused me too. Usually I'm abandoning the context once I move onto AC, but this drill set in particular had two questions (this one included) that had similar context in the correct AC. This sort of felt like looking for a summary of the argument instead of a parallel reasoning argument...
I think it all comes down to AC A not coming at the correlation. The argument is presuming a causal relationship between the adequate prenatal care and decreased risk of LBW, but it's not saying a definitive conditional statement (i.e. inadequate prenatal care is sufficient for LBW). If that were the case, then A would weaken because it would be a counterexample. But since the argument is simply suggesting a correlation, we need to attack that correlation, which is what B does.
I hope this helps...