I'm not entirely following what parasite hosts like shrimp and oysters have to do with anything...
I understand that (c) is a better answer choice than (b), but I couldn't rule (b) out either. Isn't the direction of public policy out of scope with regards to the stimulus? Is there something in the passage that I am missing here? Many thanks in advance!
Admin note: edited title
This question was confusing to me, because I took the word "widespread" to mean large populations. I crossed off answer choice (c) because just because there was a large population of tubular and vase-shaped sponges didn't imply that there were in many areas of the ocean floor. Any tips on making answer choice (c) work even while defining "widespread" this way?
I understand why each of the wrong answer choices are incorrect, but not why (B) is the correct answer. Nowhere in the passage does it state protecting the lives of other animals or people. Are we assuming this because veterinarians probably want to save animals?
Would someone explain to me the difference between answer choice (a) and (e) is?
Can somebody please explain why answer choice C is incorrect?
What is the difference between "calling into question an assumption" (A) and "denying the truth of a premise" (D)? Could someone provide examples?
I still don't see how answer choice D is correct.
The conditional in D as I translated looks like this:
real danger → government prevents
meaning that the government will prevent if there is real danger that the situation will arise, which the stimulus seems to be arguing against.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel as though (A) makes the assumption that the cost per vaccination is not ridiculously higher than the cost per medicine. Even if more people take vaccines what if the cost of administering vaccines is so ridiculously high that it counteracts the fact that more people take vaccines. If this is the case, wouldn't (E) that talks about what is rarely the case be a better answer choice? Any thoughts and input would be greatly appreciated!
I'm having trouble pinpointing the flaw in this stimulus as my conditional logic is as follows:
(G, H, J) -> T
T ->(G, H, J)
Any help would be much appreciated!
My mistake was that I translated "All too many" as an all-statement not a some-statement. Tricky wording!
"Only poetry cannot be translated well" - if not introduces group 4 translation, wouldn't the logic be translated to:
TW -> /p
? I'm not entirely sure why we're negating the sufficient condition here.
Why is this question stem not a principle-type question?
How does answer choice C strengthen the argument?
Unlike what JY says in the video, wouldn't (e) be the correct answer if it did not have "and other societies"? It correctly paraphrases the main premise of the stimulus which states that if citizens don't vote, democratic institutions will crumble and social cohesion would be lost.
What part of the passage indicates that translucent bands grown in the winter will only be half as long as the opaque bands in the summer?
Admin note: edited title for formatting
On the other hand, I had trouble confidently eliminating (C). Negating answer choice (C) would state: The number of airline crashes will not decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time. I understand why (D) is more correct but am having trouble confidently eliminating (C).
@ I guess I was being too nitpicky for this question?
@ A muscle is different from an organ, and a brain is an organ not a muscle.
Thanks @ and @ !!
I feel as though (A) would be MSS answer but MBT answer choice. Because how do we know none of the corporate sponsors withdrew their support. It may be that some previous corporate sponsors withdrew support, but they received financial support from new sponsors.
The correct answer choice (E) states that the argument "implies that brains and muscle are similar in one respect because they are similar in another respect." If the first respect refers to being able to improve if exercised, what is the latter respect?
The question stem in this question reads: "In order for the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people to be properly drawn, which one of the following must be true?"
Before doing blind review, I labelled this question as a MBT question (as is also labelled on 7Sage). However, after some thought, this question seems much better suited as a SA question. Does anyone agree?
While answer choice (a) is the obvious answer for Q22, I am not entirely convinced that (c) prevents premature heart disease. The passage only states that the alcohol in wine absorbs much slower than other distilled spirits. This doesn't mean that a lower rate of alcohol absorption prevents heart disease. Please let me know if I am missing something from the passage!
To me, answer choice was E wrong, because the stimulus talks about most species of ants. We can't push a valid inference about Saharan ants because we don't know if they fall in the category of "most species of ants" or not.