To rule out AC C for Q 19, notice that passage B appears to discuss how women shaped politics, but it actually discusses how the GENDER ROLES assigned to women were becoming more political. So really, passage B does not illustrate the "political influence of women," but rather, the political influence of their GENDER ROLES. Similarly, we know that the current trend analyzes how domesticity played a role in politics, not how WOMEN specifically play a role in politics.

@ I just double checked! I think I may have had the filter on when adding up the values, and potentially missed one or two. Regardless, I’m glad to know the values are exact now! Sorry for all the trouble and thank you so so much for your help!

@ thank you so much for the response! I actually did read the “not”. I was trying to demonstrate that bottlers could respond to lower raw milk prices by lowering bottled milk prices proportionately (thereby eliminating this AC as a potential MBT), without conflicting with the condition that “when the raw-milk price is falling, however, the markups are greatest”.To do this, I showed that although lowering prices proportionately results in no net change in the mark up (still 50%, as illustrated above) this resulting markup value could still be the greatest relative to when milk prices rise (10% markup in example above), which is what we need according to the following:

“When the raw-milk price is falling, however, the markups are greatest”

I know that my reasoning is flawed seeing as AC D a MBT, but I cannot seem to pinpoint why 😔. Thanks for your help!!!

Regarding AC D, if the raw milk price and bottled milk price decrease proportionately, then there is no net change in the markup.

For example:

$10 retail price - $5 raw milk price = 50% mark up

Following a proportional 10% decrease:

$9 retail price - $4.50 = 50% mark up.

Let’s compare this to when raw milk prices rise: $10 retail price -$9 raw milk price = 10% mark up.

So considering that a proportional decrease in bottled milk prices could result in a 50% (unchanged) markup compared to a 10% markup when prices rise, is it not possible that even when raw milk prices fall and bottled milk prices fall proportionately, there can still be the greatest markups (making AC D not MBT) I know there obviously something wrong with my reasoning.but I would appreciate some help! @ @

Hey @ It was PT 44 Section 4 (LR). Thank you for all of your help!

First, you are amazing for even attempting to write this test and powering through despite your anxiety. I would recommend using Calm or Headspace (free meditation apps) and exercising, as well as giving yourself a daily reminder of your achievements and capability to do well. 60% of your score is a reflection of your knowledge, and the other 40% is a reflection of your confidence. Have faith in yourself, keep trying, and you will receive a 160+ on this test.

Congratulations on the amazing score!

@ I did not stop the time early, it elapsed on its own.

Hey! I don't have much advice, but just know that 6 points is a big deal! Something I have been hearing a lot is that progress is not linear, and its true. Definitely think of adjusting your study strategy by reflecting on what is working and what is not, but know that with enough time and dedication you will see results. Good luck!!

Interested! namritakt@.com

If you do end up making a group, add me as well!

The fact that we do not know the increase in the cost of traditional plants is why this argument needs AC D. If we know that TPP is less than 20x the cost of traditional plants 20 years ago, we know have a basis for comparing the two (you can plug in any increase in traditional plant cost and the calculation works). Even if traditional plants increased to $10,000, if the photo plants were less than 20x the cost 20 yrs ago (say 10x; or $100,000) and have since decreased to a value 1/10 of that ($10,000), the costs are now equal ($10,000 = $10,000). However, we know that the traditional plant cost is increasing, meaning we are comparing a value that is over $10,000 (whether by a little or a lot) to the current photo plant cost of $10,000. So, regardless of the numbers you use, so long as we know D is true the argument that photo plants are less expensive works.

If you have any study tips you could share that would be so helpful! Congrats on the amazing PT score!

Interested!!!

Found the following explanation online and it helped me understand E better: The answer choice states that there are several instances where it happened, but only ONE is modernized. The sufficient condition in the stimulus is that there is similar modernizing in more than one quotation. Thus, we do not have the sufficient clause needed to support (E)

You cannot understand "such" an application without training is referential phrasing. Such refers to the application of statistics, so the link word is essentially application of statistics.

The National Association of Fire Fighters says that 45 percent of homes now have smoke detectors, whereas only 30 percent of homes had them 10 years ago. They argue that early detection is not more likely because over 50% (say 60%) of the detectors are inoperative now. But this assumes the extra 15% of homes with detectors does not outweigh this. What if MORE than 50% of detectors were inoperative (80%) 10 years ago. Since that time, we went from 80% to 60%, and therefore even though 50% of the detectors are inoperative, there were far more inoperative 10 years ago than now. Because of this, an additional 15% of homes with detectors does indicate an increase in early detection. This is why for the argument to work the percent of inoperative detectors 10 years ago must be LESS than 50%. This is AC D.

@ its Canada!

Interested! I’m in EDT

Congratulations!!! That is an amazing score increase! Do you have any reading comprehension tips or timing strategies to share? I'm really struggling in these areas :neutral:

Hi there! With your reasoning, that homelessness is a serious social problem would be the conclusion. This sentence is more so context. The “but further government spending to provide low-income housing is not the cure for homelessness” is our main conclusion because it makes you ask “why”? This is not the case with the statement that homelessness is a serious social problem. Does this statement make you ask “why”? Or do you feel it’s subjective in nature. To me, it has neither of these qualities, and reads more like context. “The most cursory glance...” is clearly reasoning. What does it explain? It discusses real estate/housing, which is mentioned in the second sentence, indicating that the second sentence is our main conclusion. “So the frequent claim that...” simply reiterates the idea that “further government spending to provide low-income housing is not the cure for homelessness.” If anything, we could call it a sub conclusion. Now, what is context? It’s compatible with denying or accepting the conclusion because it’s not so subjective. It’s just background. For instance let’s replace the first sentence of the stimulus with “there is currently a horrible pandemic sweeping the nation.” Is this not compatible with me arguing that “we should prevent further spread through x method” OR arguing that we should not prevent it using x method, but rather y method. Because it’s just context, it could be used support or deny any conclusion. This is AC C. Hope this helps!

What we know: The press has the right to pander. Why? It needs to make profits. Why? Because if it was not profit making-------/be supported. What is the alternative to making profits/pandering? Getting subsidies. There are 2 issues with this: 1) no one will subsidize honest journalism (subsidized ------/honest journalism), and 2) giving way to outside control (subsidized -----outside control). We know that subsidizing and profit making are two different ideas. Consider the statement: if /profit making-------/be supported. What does it mean to be "not profit making"? Well, the ONLY alternative is a subsidy, so we can say if /profit making ----- subsidized AND link up the previous statement: subsidized ------/honest journalism. From this we get /profit making ----- subsidized ------ /honest journalism (propaganda). AC (A) if not subsidized, it is in no danger of outside control. All we have is subsidized ----- outside control, and we cannot conclude /subsidized ------- /outside control (negating the sufficient means the rule falls apart, and so this is an invalid argument form). We cannot conclude anything from negating the sufficient condition "subsidized" so eliminate all AC's with /subsidized as the sufficient condition following the "if". This leaves you with AC D and AC E as potential MBT's. (D) to produce honest journalism, it must be profit-making institution (honest journalism-----profit making). We know that /profit making----/honest journalism, so this is just the contrapositive and is a MBT. (E) to make a profit, it must produce honest journalism (profit making ------ honest journalism). This is the opposite of what we have (/profit making------/honest journalism).

@ it sounds like your reasoning is sound! In your example you used 1.5 where as I used 1 to rule out the possibility of having less than 2 weeks unused. Either way works!

(A) Jennifer did not use two weeks of the paid vacation time to which she was entitled past year. She is entitled to three weeks, plus max half of the unused weeks from the previous year. We know that she is using 4 weeks or 3 weeks + 1 from the previous year. This 1 year can only be maximum half of the previous year. Imagine she only had one unused week from last year, the additional one she is receiving this year is MORE than maximum half of this amount (its 100%). She must have at least two weeks unused. If she had 2 weeks unused, then the 1 additional week this year is 50% (satisfies maximum half condition), and if she had all three weeks unused then the 1 additional week is 33% (satisfies maximum half condition). This is why A is a MBT (she must have taken 2 weeks off, which also includes the possibility of taking 3 weeks off).

@ thanks for the tips!