All A is saying is that there are some overlapping cat/dog households, but it doesn’t touch on the key flaw in the stimulus. It definitely may be true but it doesn't show a flaw in reasoning.
After getting this question wrong, I submitted this for the 7sage meme contest in its honor
https://imgur.com/a/6xoHJvw
Going to use this space to review the negation test in case it's helpful for anyone else..
The MBT test and Negation tests can be used for Necessary Assumption questions. (Lesson 3/45 in NA Section of Syllabus for more)
If you negate the correct answer choice, your argument completely falls apart. If it doesn't do much to your argument, it's not the right answer.
A and B are appealing answers so let's put them to the test.
A) Three months is not enough time for the body to fully benefit from aerobic exercise. The argument doesn't fully fall apart because maybe they benefit 80%., which is enough to help their stress. We don't know. This is a SA, not NA.
B) The volunteers who were assigned to the aerobics class also lift weights outside the classes. The argument doesn't fully fall apart because now both groups lift weights, making it a better-controlled experiment. It certainly doesn't weaken the argument.
Now E...
E) On average, the volunteers assigned to the aerobics classes didn't get a greater amount of aerobic exercise overall during the experiment, including any exercise outside the classes, than did the volunteers assigned to the weight-training classes. umm, if they didn't get more aerobics exercise, than what are we even talking about? The argument crumbles.
During my PT and when reviewing, I skipped over E because it seemed too obvious (eye roll at myself). When quickly reading, I just assumed in the stimulus that most wheels were made of wood and thought it outright said that. In watching this video, it clicked.
First Sentence: Wood doesn't stay preserved well.
Second Sentence: For this reason, we don't have many remains of wheels.
Inference: Most wheels were made of wood (aka AC E).
I originally chose B but after taking a break for a few days and coming back to the question, I immediately saw that any assumption about small and medium-sized companies was just completely unnecessary. We already know lending is less for those companies. Also, what if it's not that small and medium-sized companies were more financially strong - and rather there was just less market demand for lending to those sized businesses? B doesn't make sense even if needed. So when looking for an assumption for large companies, I looked for what resolves the confusion of the first sentence.
During blind review I changed my correct answer to C because I interpreted "obvious" to mean "visible." And I thought to myself, I guess water contamination is more visible than ozone. Made a couple of leaps. I see now that the only possible answer is B with the information we have.
If a school encourages submitting SAT scores for an LSAT addendum (ie Michigan, Berkeley, etc), how low should the score be to show you’ll outperform your LSAT score? I honestly can’t tell if my SAT score was low enough to prove that on an addendum because it's been so long since high school
I was really stuck between A and B but ultimately chose B in BR because A provided this hypothetical about bee efficiency, whereas the stimulus straight up told us how this will impact cranberries.
Constantly battling my inner desire to fight with the test makers...
Here's why B is wrong and C is right.
C:
Conclusion: The recent ads for Ebsen's campaign were sent out to test their potential to influence popular opinion
Premises/Evidence:
- Normally political candidates send out campaign material to influence popular opinion.
- They covered a wide variety of topics and the campaign has been spending heavily on follow up to gauge the effect on recepients.
B:
Conclusion: The recent ads for Ebsen's campaign were sent to too few households to influence popular opinion effectively.
Premises/Evidence:
- ????
I wonder if anyone had the same problem as me just not reading closely enough/seeing what I wanted, and not reading all the answers.
In my mind, D read "Bird lovers that feed wild birds help preserve the habitats of threatened species of wild birds and animals."
I just want to flag to 7Sage, that something happens here where the explanation for #19 doesn't link to the explanation but the passage video does. This isn't the first time I've seen this glitch. #help
I fell for D because I got the context confused with the argument. I should have translated -
Elements are clearly still being created in the universe today because if no elements then they'd all be gone because unstable + there are a bunch today
If you struggled with this and/or the library tax question, I highly recommend going back to the Core Curriculum's Introduction to Logic - particularly Group 3 and 4 translations. Really helped cement my understanding of why the answer is E over B.
Are you doing this still? I'm interested!
You don't have to submit an additional essay for Root-Tilden-Kern if your personal statement addresses your PI interest. I've written a lot of the essays by using rejected ideas for my personal statement too. I would say focus on the essays that you think you are truly a good fit for - it's way easier to write an essay if you're not BSing. Also, I'd say just start. They're all fairly short - and they're not nearly supposed to be as intense as your personal statement. I think you'll be surprised how quickly you can crank them out.
I think this is an extremely good thing and you should stop worrying about not worrying enough. If you need to do something test-related, make a fish dinner with omega3s, clean your space, make sure your computer is ready, go on a walk, and stay mentally relaxed.
I'm interested. I work full-time but have a flexible schedule.
Once I figured out that this was a necessary assumption question, I was stuck between and C and D and used the negation test.
C. There are other factors that are more important to successful business management other than speed of processing information or ability to integrate it. So? As long as coffee negatively impairs one of the factors important to successful business management, it does in fact impair the overall management ability.
D. In the experiment, drinking more coffee did have beneficial effects on overall management ability that outweighed the reduction in ability to integrate past information. The argument crumbles and more coffee doesn't impair overall management ability.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around some of these public interest essays (like Root-Tilden, Berk Public Interest Scholars, and general supplemental essays). I can't find a single example anywhere. Has anyone managed to find some?
Does anyone have suggestions on how to approach this? I am not sure if it needs to be a personal story or if I can just talk about my work experience. I'm running out of creative juice.
I identified that my first choice, B, was wrong in BR because the stimulus doesn't make a claim that innocuous everyday occurrences (IOC) increase from vagrancy laws. I'd like it better if it said, "mistakenly infers, from the claim that vagrancy laws are associated with an increase in IOC crimes, that vagrancy laws increase overall criminal activity."
What ultimately made me choose E was that the columnist doesn't distinguish between the kinds of crime. What if vagrancy laws do decrease violent crime but not IOC crime? Also vagrancy laws may increase reported crime rates (with more reports of IOC) but maybe they help decrease crime overall (with less violent crime). Therefore the reclassification of certain occurrences of crimes doesn't mean an increase in criminal activity.
I actually sort of like the class-version of this explanation because it slows JY down in his explanations.
For me upon first review of this question, I simply didn't understand the last sentence of the stimulus which did not help me assess this question accurately. I chose B and was tempted by C because if you just read the first two sentences, you might think the claim contradicts the first sentence.
During BR, I was able to more closely read the last sentence and identify it as the conclusion. I still didn't understand really what it meant. But from understanding the structure, it becomes easier to identify the ACs that aren't right.
This is a little different from what JY says but this is what helped me get to the right answer:
premise 1: advantage of sex repro = ^ genetic variation = advantage for species as a whole
premise 2: ^ genetic variation /= advantage for individual member of species
conclusion: sole reason that sex repro is best because natural selection favors entire species over others
role of premise 2: helps prove that natural selection doesn't have other reasons for it to be favored, like individually benefiting member of species
My answer is boring but taking deep breaths and slowing down. My game set ups take longer but I can get through the questions faster.
#help, how come JY doesn't write morally right ↔ L.O. + harm self? Instead, he writes morally right → L.O. + harm self. I thought you had to with "only if"?
Is there a way to get Lexie's email? She said she would be happy to share her diversity statement and since I have a similar story, I would love to see the full statement. Thanks!
Will the existing archive stay available to the public?