Jon did an excellent job. But he is too smart that after he read the stimulus, he can always find a right way to stab the question right into the heart. I could not follow him. I feel more comfortable with JY's explaination. He lower this level to a mundane moron and explain from a moron's perspective. LOL.
Sorry I can probably understand why D is correct and why E is wrong. But I did not really get the idea of control group. Why did half of the people in shorter experiement get placebo make this experiment as a good one?
Now this question is crystal clear to me. Thank you, JY.
The premise said that people would not say anything bad about public figures under strict libel laws. And the conclusion is people people impossible to have good reputation. As JY said, if no one said anything bad about public figure, we would expect them to have good reputation. But how come it would be impossible to have good reputation. If we fill in the gap with E. This PSA would lead the argument making more sense. If nobody say anything bad to make someone have bad reputation, maybe we could not believe anyone with good reputation because lack of comparision. Everyone in that would might be neutral about people because no one would say anything. Just my personal thought, not sure if it is the right way to interpret this.
Well I've finished all of the 7sage curriculum and started PT 6 days ago. I've been doing one PT a day, and thanks for my job, I had pretty much time at work to BR.
But disappointedly and scary is that my PT plateau kept unchange around 154. Usually I got about 90% on LG, 60% on LR, which sometimes the passages and too rocket science to me to apply memory method. And 70% on LR. Recent PTs showed I am pretty confident for those questions with 3-star difficulty or less. But those hard questions are still huge challenging time-consuming monster to me. I will take my entire next week off and will fully devote my self to PT.
Any suggetions? Thanks.
What if C is only a few people know how to produce white glass back then?