- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
DON'T WORRY IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A WORD MEANS. I couldn't remember what attrition meant, but I knew, based on the conclusion, that we really needed to either see a crazy new mating habit or that there were more birds than usual, so that when they bred, there would be more babies than usual. Also, the feeder comment is weird enough that I knew it would have to tie into the AC. Given this, B and C are really the only ones that seem viable, and B leaves open the possibility that their mating patterns could've lessened, which would be bad. So C is the best answer.
A) we don’t know that most cars now don’t have undetectable homing devices. So even if true, might not lead to decrease.
C) even if rarely apprehended and now apprehended more, we need a SIGNIFICANT decrease. So we need to know that the # of thieves arrested for robbing a small # of cars is relatively large. So even this AC kind of implies that there must not be that many thieves (which is what E says)
If written down, greatest threat. Complex password, generally (51+ %) of the time, written now.
If written down greatest threat, not written down must be at least a little less of a threat. Remember easy passwords, no need write down. No write down, must be less of a threat.
If you overthought like me, this is your reminder that it doesn't say whether or not they're been to a musical or seen one. It said EXPOSED TO MUSICALS. I was thinking maybe these people knew about the musical conventions (maybe through pop culture or research) even though they hadn't seen it, but knowing about the conventions is a form of exposure too.
I feel like people are unnecessarily making the "why A is wrong" explanation really complicated (I also originally picked A). A is wrong because just because this particular fad isn't indicative of genuine acceptance doesn't mean fads in general can't be.
This might be too late for this comment, but it might still be helpful to others. B isn't right because it doesn't establish that the rise happened during the chief's tenure. What if, several decades before him, crime was low, and the chief right before him was horrible, and crime spiked a ton, and then this chief brought it down (but not to the level it used to be)? Bringing it back down is still progress.
There are no replicas/decoys in the experiment, so A and D are out. It's about how they respond to external stimulus, so B is out. And E isn't trying to determine anything, it's just sort of hunting. That leaves C, which is weird cause of the "near the home" thing, but the others are actually wrong wrong.
I think you might be mixing up the idea of friction between two plates and resistance from the mantle. D says that (roughly) the amount which the plates touch and create friction is only influenced by the angle at which they touch. The angles themselves are determined by the resistance from the mantle. Even if the plates are influenced by the angles only, the angles can still be influenced by something else.
D sort of looks like: "What I make for breakfast is related only to what is in my fridge." But what's in my fridge could be influenced by a number of things (e.g., money, what was in/out of stock, etc.)
WRONG:
Plates influenced --> angles --> resistance from mantle
This makes it seem like plates would have to also be influenced by the resistance from the mantle. So if they aren't, D would weaken.
RIGHT:
Plates influenced --> (by) angles
Angles influenced--> (by) resistance
The angles themselves and whether they are influenced by something are separate ideas.
E is wrong because the social norms limit OTHER chefs' creative output, not the creator of the recipe
This is going to be long but bear with me. I think this question is so confusing for 2 reasons. 1) people are mixing up promoted and published. 2) you need to remember that this is an assumption question. So you're gonna pretend something is the case to see if it makes the conclusion true.
There are 3 given premises:
1: Pub --> Prof N Urges
2: Prof N Urges
3: Prof N Urges --> promoted
After here, I rewrote for clarity:
Pub --> Prof N Urges --> Promoted
There is a conclusion:
IMP & WW --> promoted
To figure this out, we need to pretend each AC is a new TRUE premise. AC A says:
IMP --> pub
So let's add this new premise to the chain:
IMP--> Pub --> Prof N Urges --> Promoted
IF THIS WERE TRUE, then it would follow that if it is important, it will be promoted:
IMP --> Promoted
And IF THAT IS TRUE, then IMPORTANCE ALONE is SUFFICIENT for promotion. So we can conclude that it will be published because we know that it is important. The fact that it's well-written too is only there to throw you off. So just because we have well-written too is just a bonus.
If you are like me, you thought at first that it was saying the book needed to be important AND well written to be PUBLISHED. If that were the case, AC A wouldn't be right. 
I didn't choose D because I felt like well even if a CMC requests fewer than 10, the farmer could still grow them anyways just to be safe (aka., doesn't have to be true). BUT, I see now that because it also says "Whatley encourages them to grow only crops that clients ask for," there's an issue because either 1) you grow only the ones that the CMC asks for or 2) you grow 10, but some of them the CMC doesn't want. In either case, you violate a rec.
I got this question right, but I am having a hard time with an aspect of this. For the stimulus and for the ACs, they say something like "cities with healthy economies...." When I initially read this, I read it like "if you're a city and you have a healthy economy, making it A & B," when I should read it as "cities with healthy economies" as the subject as a whole (A). How/when am I supposed to make this distinction, given that the English language sometimes allows for there to be a conjunction that isn't "and"? (hopefully this made sense)
I do well on LR videos and drills when the stimulus is read aloud, and I can usually pause and answer correctly before the explanation. But I’m struggling to replicate that performance on practice tests. I think I understand stimuli better when I hear them than when I read silently, and I often need to reread them. Does anyone have advice for improving silent comprehension and processing stimuli efficiently under timed conditions?
D is also wrong because it says "pitch alone". Timing could be a factor, ok. But anything else at all could be a factor (e.g., hearing loss or short-term memory loss).