We assume the data is correct, up until the correct answer choice tells us it IS correct. By giving us that choice, we MUST then assume the following: that mod. exercise lowers blood chol, which in turn lowers risk of hardening arteries which then lowers the risk of art. bloackage due to blood clots. this is classic conditional logic. What also makes this hard is how obvious the AC is, which may deter people from choosing it.

Also, C may be TRUE, but it is not right.

They may not be conducting the research but I am assuming the companies would be the ones implementing the technologies backed up by the research (conducted or not conducted by them, doesn't really matter).

My thought process for #12 was "In ENGLAND it is called 'dower'... in another country it might be called something else" assuming that this happens in other places as well.

"re-creates" actual events, does not mean events or characters can't be made up in the story. For example a fiction movie based on real event, like "catch me if you can", it is based on real events but not everything that happens in the movie actually happened in real life, it is dramatized and romanticized, some events are also made up.

I think the use of the word "translator" is more to explain the way that judges have to take legal text, "translate it" or make it make sense in the real world and apply it to the current, real-world case they are dealing with. therefore, depending on the "translation" of legal text, the judges may come to different conclusions. There is no "one single translation" because depending on the judge, the way they come to form an opinion, using legal text and the facts of the case may differ from judge to judge depending no how they are "translating" said legal text.

AC C is assuming that according to White, judges need to adopt diverse theoretical approaches when forming an opinion but that is not expressed in the passage at all and therefore cannot be the answer.

Hey Lillian23, the answer is talking about income tax deduction, meaning that yes they donate but they get a tax deduction, so it benefits them as well. Giving to charity, by the rich, in this sense is not to elevate those in need.

Great explanation thank you!

I am struggling to get these under timed conditions because I feel like I can't process what I am reading the first time, so I have to re-read the statement. But without time conditions (in the blind review) I got this right away... I feel like I cannot perform under time pressure ugh

If the birth rate decreased, does this justify the argument that there has been a dramatic increase of people over the age of 65 living in this region because the average age has increased from 52 to 57?

The idea here is to find something that will strengthen the overall argument, or the bridge between the conclusion and premises.

SAME! for both timed and BR, I quickly chose a but then thought the word deceptive was too strong

I had a hard time with this question because I did not fully process the question stem.

The question stem asks "which one of the following inferences about an individual raincloud is supported by the passage?" We know from the passage that rain clouds must contain more ordinary oxygen than oxygen 18 (this includes any rain cloud), and the one formed over the Atlantic ocean is no different (for the purposes of this passage). Therefore, we are not trying to infer why after it passes the amazon forest the oxygen 18 content is still constant, we are just trying to infer what we know about an individual raincloud.

AC A mentions a raincloud, the one that is formed over the Atlantic, and what do we know about rain clouds (from the passage)? That they contain more ordinary oxygen than oxygen 18.

Same D,x

Hello :),

My first PT (the diagnostic I guess) was 137 as well. I stopped studying for literally a year or so, not only because I was discouraged but for personal circumstances. I've studied on and off since january and just started to increase my studying about two months ago. I was very scared and super anxious (like palms sweaty moms spaghetti kinda thing lol) to take another PT but I thought "well if its crap its okay, I am still learning" and I was able to jump to a 151, this gave me a bit more confidence and the last one I took I got 154 (blind review 165). I will be taking my third PT today.

I think a year of studying is absolutely enough time to reach 170+ for you. Just focus on understanding first, and then on timing. The score you got is the score you got, leave it behind, learn from it and move on. You can only go up from here :)!

Good luck :D

This took me way too long D,x

I am interested!

This is great to hear cuz my first diagnostic was a 137. I have been studying for a while now but I get so anxious taking another preptest because of that diagnostic. Thank you for this!

I have never been so happy to a question right, this was so hard. I guess I am making progress ... finally :')

"proper assholes" DEAD.

He does negate the necessary condition by saying that they max out at one, and therefore cannot teach more than one intro class in the same term.

So you can say either FD --> /Teach more than one OR like JY does it FD --> can only teach one

Because the AC B is putting "rational" or R as a necessary condition when we know from the lawgic that R is actually a sufficient condition. But this would not be as clear if the lawgic was not drawn out and therefore people fall for it because it is hard to see if it is a NC or a SC.

I had the lawgic... but could not really understand the ACs :( .

Just when you think you're doing well ...

Actually I just got it. It is not a question of whether it is bad for them, it simply gives an alternative to the hypothesis of caffeine affecting the Akabe people. Instead it wrecks the argument by introducing a substance that results in the opposite of caffeine (ie narcotics which has sleep inducing properties), so in high amounts it would affect the Akabe people. Therefore, what is affecting the Akabe people is not the caffeine, as hypothesized by the anthropologists.

Exactly. Tobacco is also a narcotic but people have smoke breaks. I know this is overthinking but my reasoning was like yours, how do we know this narcotic is bad for them?

You've gotta be kidding me. We are told not to make extra assumptions but D relies on a huge assumption that high levels of environmental pollution is what causes cancer and not high average fat intake?

#help

The director is not defending any action, also there is no action in this stimulus that is frequently carried out.