Is there any way we can reset the drill questions we have completed in the past but still save our completed prep tests? I want to redo questions ive done a long time ago since I dont have too many fresh prep tests left but the only way I can do this is if I reset my completed prep tests too and I dont want to do that. If this isnt possible, can an option be implemented to allow for this.
I eliminated C because I felt like it was attacking/falsifying one of the premises of the argument. If there are plays the critic didn't see or read, then the premise that none of the plays written last year examined human nature in a skillful way would be false/weakened, and I know you're not supposed to attack premises. Was this an acceptable way or eliminating this AC?
#help
so the first sentence was just context? I though it was the main conclusion and everything else was support/ sub conclusion.
I was stuck between these 2 answer choices too, but I ultimately picked E because after reading the stimulus many times, I felt like the phrasing of the second sentence and the reasoning for such an exception being the "high demand" of agricultural imports made choice E make more sense since they want to ensure that they serve justice while also ensuring to protect their peoples needs. Also, negating C vs negating E made it pretty clear that E was "more" necessary for the argument.
So exactly the idea that answer choice E presents. It is more nuanced then never punishing a country to protect your peoples needs, like if this was Hitler were talking about, you bet this country would probably not trade or sell anything to them. So it was more about weighing out justice and consequences vs a flat out never rule.
Bascially from this stimulus, I got the idea that they would still do other things to punish this country, like not trade or sell other things to them so still dishing out justice but decided to still give them what they ordered because of the consequences that not doing so would pose to their country and people.
Sorry for the lackluster explanation. I don't know why it's hard to put into words the reasoning behind it. It was more of a feeling based on the phrasing of the stimulus. Ultimately, for NA questions, negating the answer choices is a pretty surefire way of increasing the odds of picking the right choice.
This question and AC D was crazy lol the test writers were trippin
I apologize for my harsh words... this question, in fact, does make sense.
Nah the answer to this question is wrong and you cant convince me otherwise. This question is a mistake and its parents regret it
Yeah this question was the most illogical piece of dirt I've ever seen. Just because other people are doing it doesn't make the practice any less bad lol.
what difficulty and any tips? These questions are the worst.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but how do you negate an answer choice?
When you negate an answer, do you just negate the first thing possible or all things possible?
For Q10, wouldn't we be able to definitively conclude that the element of knowledge has been established since he was charged with an offense that contains the element of knowledge of the existence of illegal drugs?
I tried to work it out but I couldn't figure it out lol, I don't know if I was supposed to work it out or if its even possible lol.
I would say it does, and it doesn't. Both wordings get you to the same location/end result, but the "cannot" phrasing is just more accurate.
The main idea is that if Wong attends, then Heegun does not(and according to the original claim it is because he is prohibited/cannot attend if Wong attends)
In both phrasings, he doesn't end up going, but based on the original claim, the "cannot" phrasing is more accurate.
Because it is a group 1 indicator(i.e. it indicates that whatever immediately follows it is the sufficient condition.
If the sufficient condition is met( the game is fun) then the necessary condition MUST be met. Think of it in terms of the cat mammal example, being a cat is the sufficient condition and being a mammal is the necessary condition. If the sufficient condition is met (it is a cat), then the necessary condition(it is a mammal) MUST be met.
Now, let's look at it the other way around. If the necessary condition is met (i.e. it is a mammal or the rules are fair), does that mean the sufficient condition must be true? NO! The necessary condition is merely REQUIRED for the sufficient condition to BE ABLE/HAVE THE POTENTIAL/HAVE THE CHANCE to be MET/TRUE/FULFILLED, but it does not guarantee it.
It could be a mammal(necessary condition for being a cat) and still not be a cat(i.e. it is a tiger or dog or any other mammal)
The rules of the game could be fair, and the game could still not be fun( BUT the rules of the game MUST be fair according to the claim in order for the game to have the POTENTIAL to be fun)
The claim simply states that "if a game is fun(sufficient cond.), then the rules are fair(necessary cond.)" So, given the rules of this statement and the sufficient and necessary conditions, for a game to be fun or have the potential to be fun, then the rules MUST be fair.
Sufficient condition met/fulfilled=necessary condition met/fufilled
Necessary condition met/fulfilled DOES NOT equal sufficient condition met/fulfilled( Simply allows for the possibility of the sufficient condition to take place but does not guarantee its occurrence)
Basically, the sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition is met( because the necessary condition is NECESSARY for the sufficient condition to even have a chance of occurring, thus if it occurs, you know the rest), but the necessary condition does NOT guarantee the sufficient condition is met.
For 6.1 why was unaware changed to aware in the contrapositive instead of it being not unaware. Wouldnt taking the opposite of unaware change the meaning compared to taking its contrapositive?
I get its probably not a big deal since there is not many other ways of saying not unware other than aware but isn't this wrong in principle?
Because they are comparing two things, one compares gas-powered cars to elective cars, and one compares two different types of light bulbs.
An absolute statement would be: Gas powered cars are resource intensive and produce lots of air pollution.
This is an absolute because it talks about one thing( Gas powered cars) Irrespective of anything else.
While the examples in question 4 always have 2 subjects that they are comparing despite stating an "absolute" between the two, it is still comparing and thus still relative and not absolute.
For all we know, maybe both electric cars and gas-powered cars produce lots of air pollution and use lots of resources, but relative to one another, Gas-powered cars produce/ use more.
Ultimately, these questions compare two things relative to each other, not individually or in a bubble, which would be the case in absolute statements.
What does it mean to make an assumption true or false. The assumption that tigers are mammals cant be made false unless it is not explicitly stated and someone doesn't know they are mammals, is that an example of making an assumption false?
and for the other assumption regarding "Aggressiveness and the potential to cause injuries to people are factors that make an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet" could this assumption be made false by stating that such animals are desirable and good for security and defense?
lmaoo