What I'm not understanding is regardless of who or what is driving up the price. It could still be the case that if the initial measurement is a comparison of avg price of cars to average individual income have diverged from one another in the past 25 years and it can hold that individuals have proportionately more of their incomes going to their cars.
I'm not sure why who is responsible for driving up the price matters.
When you look at econ graphs you are allowed to isolate variables. In this case avg individual income to average price for the car (I don't see this as non-plausible).
Something isn't clicking for me guys, can someone #help?
Analogous Attempt:
People who are on diets usually have a higher fat percentage than people who are not on diets. Therefore, if you want to have less body fat don't go on a diet.
Thoughts? Yea/Nay?
I eliminated E because it said "unusually large amounts of coffee" whereas the argument was only dealing with the domain of "normal" amounts of coffee. Therefore the AC was outside the scope of the argument.
Is this a valid reason for having eliminated this other than what JY stated?
Thoughts?
#help (Added by Admin)
I eliminated A for another reason ( I missed that they were talking about blossoms but even if they were talking about leaves I thought of it like this).
AC A:
Neither R nor C bloom for more than a few weeks each year, and the blossoms [replace with leaves] of R growing in any area do not appear until at least several weeks after C growing in that area have ceased to bloom.
More than a few weeks each year: maybe our observer has taken the temp. during those few weeks (this point is negligible).
1. C stops growing ----- then + weeks later ----- 2. R leaves grow
C is not bloomed (unopened blossoms) overlaps with R (uncurled leaves)
so it's possible for our observer to have taken the temp of both during that overlapping time frame so I found this point to also be negligible.
Someone/anyone who sees's an err here please chime in! I think it's right but maybe I'm missing something - just want to make sure that the reasoning behind why I eliminated this AC is correct.
Hello all,
I'm going over weakening questions on CC and just had an idea/thought.
What do you guys think about starting bottom-up when reading the answer choices for the questions? (E-A)
I find a lot of them to be closer to the bottom than to the top so far and it seems to save me a little time.
Thoughts? =o )
Hello hello,
I was hoping I could find some generous hearts to tutor me for free? I've noticed some posts on the forum and I thought to give it a shot and ask! I'd love to hear from you.
If you are interested I would be more than happy to give more info about me.
Talk soon!
Am I wrong to think that for D to be true there is an assumption that the "people who wish to avoid gaining body fat" would not use the energy gained from eating simple carbs?
Does that make sense?
#help (Added by Admin)
So, could A and/or E be possible Answer Choices if this was a "reconcile" question?
#help (Added by Admin)
@ said:
lol ^ ty.
"I think if we're going any deeper, I need a philosophy major to come in and take over."
lol ^ ty.
Hi, I am stuck on this:
New marketing ventures require a degree of managerial skill disproportionate to their short-term revenue prospects.
JY says that the talent is way up there and that the shot term revenue is below that but based off the sentence I can't gather that the relationship of talent to short term revenue is organized that way ie. talent high, short term revenue below it. How does the make that conclusion? Where does he gather info from the passage to get to that?
Also, I'm not sure A. What low short-term revenue is doing in relation to the managerial talent and I am also not understanding what low short-term revenue has to do with anything at all?
Stuck =(
#help (Added by Admin)
Hi all,
Sometimes after watching JY Video explanation and even doing a light google search on the question/reading other forums I still don't understand it.
How do you guys get through this? Do you just move on?
I think I'm just stumped on the English here, can someone parse out what C is saying?
The rebate, if offered, would not attract purchasers who otherwise might not use Grow-Again.
"would not attract purchasers who otherwise might not use Grow-Again. "
I don't get this part ^.
What does the word "otherwise" mean here and what does "might not" mean here (ie. what is the role/significance of "might" in here?
#help (added by admin)
Ok amazing! Ty so much !! :D
Thank you everyone!! :) I really appreciate the comments (3(/p)
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-18/
In this question I did
EP -> NS ->/P
P - >/ NS -> /EP
I don't remember where in the CC JY Covered Subscripts and I am not sure how/when to use them.
When I tried to use them before after a quick google search, I would put subscripts and then in JYs video he wouldn't use them so I am just unsure of how to use them according to sage.
Can anyone help?
My only problem in this question was translating /Imperfect to mean perfect.
I didn't properly equate not imperfect to perfection as a contrapositive.
What is /Imperfect? Must it be Perfect? Is that really the binary cut?
English = (
#help (Added by Admin)
This is probably an overstretch but... my problem with E is the following assumption...
"The Hypothalamus is known not to be causally linked to disease Y, and disease X is a subtype of disease Y."
This must assume that the Hypothalumus's activity is fully imposed upon or directly linked to the subregion of the brain (interstitial nucleus) and that they do not operate in isolation from one another.
But as a reminder to me and others - this is not meant to destroy the argument but the AC does cast doubt on the argument's claim which is enough to weaken it.