Join my Discord Server: https://discord.com/invite/2RBW6Ted
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I was hesitant to choose B. Wouldn't not having a sizable quantity of food be a motivation to keep other chimps from the food?
What's confusing is the phrase "only eat frogs from the lagoon". Do they mean they only eat frogs that are from the lagoon, or do they mean from the lagoon, they only eat the frogs?
In Option E for analysis sake, doesn't the leading critic have an inadequate argument? He has limited support for his claim that it would be wrong to send explorers to Mars.
I thought Option E was broad but rather fitting. It reflects the stimulus' assumption that only organic factors affect mental illness, and there are no other confounding factors. To me Option C is correct just because it's a more specific attack.
For Q24 Option C, the passage starts out with saying that Computers are used as legal research systems, so using AI (which is a type of computer) for that purpose is a safe assumption when it's original advanced function is not working well currently.
Wouldn't Option C "The patients who consumed the Mediterranean diet" be referring to all patients who were told to switch to Mediterranean? That's how I would assume based on habitual uses of language.
Amateur mistake, didn't read the prompt right and thought it was "weakening"
I know we eliminated Q15 Option E while reading passage A, but is this option wrong for passage B, because the Ban Chiang is a mix of hunter-gatherer and cultivator economy, rather than strictly pre-agricultural?
For Q15 Option E, I was under the impression the text gave enough information to judge the extent, in the last paragraph, using words like "large amounts of" and "several species with high cariogenic potential (implying high carb)"
If B lends support, wouldn't it be a premise?
The last sentence misled me to choose Option D: "More problems are created than solved when agriculture is the domain of the industrialist, not of the farmer. "
Is the passage implying that the complementary concept is not a general method in physics? #13 option E was confusing for me because of that
Am I too stringent on the stimulus if I say "saving money" can't be necessarily assumed as saving money overall for the plant? That's why I didn't initially choose C.
Noooooooooooooooooooo
It happened twice now for NA questions. When you know the other options are probably wrong, the most neutral question that you don't understand is correct lol.
I also related to sunspot activities when determining the right answer. Interestingly, in the LSAC lawhub explanation, it only stated option B being correct, because it does not specify which species are affected.
I fell for E, since I assumed in my mind that historical battle, also means historically accurate
I'm confused, wouldn't traditions of liberty that Eltis claims Drescher idealizes, be related to the moral traditions of abolitionists that Drescher is stated to reject in the previous paragraph?
I thought it was E, because it confirms that bigger houses are associated with wealth.
I find it inaccurate to call the author's support as "examples". I usually regard examples as specific examples of a phenomenon, person or country etc., rather than general statements in the passage.
Within the parameters of the stimulus, I was thinking there could be a case where most rodents come from 1 specific species. In this instance Option B would be false.
There has to be an easier way than adding ppl individually lol. Here's my own group on Discord to join:
https://discord.com/invite/2RBW6Ted
At 8:45 when JY asks us to reflect what "justify" means, assuming that this question is representative, would that mean the justifying factor is usually a principle/value like A, rather than a tangible example/fact like C?
I understand why C is the ideal option, but would it be also be right to say there is no evidence that B is wrong?
I think the reason why C looks tempting is because: due to the fact no system of peer review is completely effective, that warrants other methods of preventing fraud as well. This will be mistakenly equivocated to the biologists' enhanced safeguard against fraud (being the other methods) that the argument promotes physicists should follow as well.