I look at it this way: Why is one group (65+) show a higher percentage of those malnourished versus those in poverty, when the other does not (65-)? What answer choice does NOT help explain that?

Reading the stimulus, we notice a discrepancy between the two groups: the 65- crowd sees a smaller percentage of those who are malnourished versus those in poverty. Why are we not seeing similar results with those 65+?

Answer choice A is pretty says that doctors are less likely to correctly diagnose malnutrition in 65+ versus 65-. As a result, it is implied that this yields a less accurate percentage in the 65+ group.

Answer choice A helps explain the phenomenon because it highlights the proportional discrepancies between the two groups.

I understand why the statement "Cats make good pets" would be the logical answer, but are there answer choices missing? The example explains why Answer Choice (E) is the best answer, but there are no other answer choices listed. It would help build context if we saw the "wrong" answers too. Or is this just a typo?

#feedback

I'm still confused how the (R or /OpNo) translates to the (OpNo --> R).

This is what I ultimately translate it into but I'm backtracking based on your solution:

If a building has 10 or more units, then she has kept that pet openly and notoriously, and then she has an inalienable right to keep a pet.

What is the "rule" that enables you to translate that structure? How does the "or" translate to the -->?

Domain: High school teachers who teach AP courses

Concept 1: They will only tutor students they believe to be in danger of failing.

Concept 2: Only students who missed Monday’s class are in danger of failing.

Concept 1:

In concept 1, the G2 application is not as apparent. Within this concept alone, "students they believe to be in danger of failing" is the only scenario where a teacher will tutor the student. So, "danger of failing" becomes the necessary condition and "tutoring" is the sufficient.

tutor-->danger-failing

Concept 2:

Lawgic: danger-failing --> missed-Monday

(Follow G2 rules that only students "who missed Monday" is necessary and "danger of failing is sufficient.)

The best way I can explain it is that concept 2 is pretty much an extension of concept 1. Aka it modifies the students referenced in concept 1. So if you make it one sentence:

High school teachers who teach AP courses will only tutor students they believe to be in danger of failing, who are only students who missed Monday's class.

If you chain everything together it becomes:

tutor-->danger-failing-->missed-Monday

I was confused about this too. But the explanation mentions context is important.

The explanation does say:

If you're thinking whether it's okay to equate "not denied treatment" with "receive treatment" the answer is no, it's not okay because the two are not equivalent. One can be "not denied treatment" yet still not be given treatment. I'm not a doctor, so if you come to me for something that ails you, I will not deny you treatment but I also will not give you treatment.

Also:

While the sentence doesn't explicitly state who is doing the denying or not denying, it's probably fair to assume that the sentence implies it's the hospitals.

I wrote

Require --> /denied treatment

Which in the context of the prompt can also be written as

Require --> receive treatment

Translation: If one requires treatment, they will receive treatment (aka they will not be denied treatment).

The contrapositive of the latter is

/receive --> /require

I think the "unless" in Question 2's explanation is a mistake. The indicator word is "cannot."

#feedback

I was having trouble grasping this one as well and this took me awhile to understand. I am focusing too much on the specific words and losing sight of the context of the sentance.

For the first sentence "unless" is the conditional and indicates to us to negate the sufficient condition.

My understanding is the concept that follows the conditional becomes the necessary condition (i.e., generates a high sales volume) and the other concept (i.e., cannot get bulk discounts) becomes the sufficient condition.

It does not mean (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is where I think I was confusing myself) that whatever follows the conditional is the sufficient condition.

So, back to my original point, we need to negate the sufficient condition (i.e., negated version becomes CAN get bulk discounts).

So...

Bulk discounts --> High sales volume

Translation: If a store gets bulk discounts, then it can generate a high sales volume.

The second sentence is relatively easy to decipher:

To generate high sales volume, a bookstore must [conditional] carry popular books.

The concept following "must" is the necessary condition.

So...

High sales volume --> popular books

When you combine the chain:

Bulk discounts --> High sales volume --> Popular books

Valid conclusion: If a store gets bulk discounts, then they must offer popular books.

Translation: Getting bulk discounts from publishers requires stores to carry popular books.

@zacharyhunter91539 said:

Age is just a number and comparison is the thief of joy. Nobody's journey is linear and you're allowed to change and grow for your whole life! I'm 33 and studying for the LSAT - ur good.

DITTO! I'm 37.