- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
You see in the stimulus that the author does not give THEIR own position/stance until the "however" part.
This is, not always, but a clear indication that this is the point of their argument. The author is letting you know that "hey, these planes are being developed to hold more things...HOWEVER, that space is more than likely going to just hold additional passengers."
And then the premises after that support the "however" part.
Answer A does not do this. It does not show the main point or conclusion but just restate the premise in the stimulus. We already know these gigantic planes are being developed. The author doesn't agree or disagree with that, they're just saying that.
However...Answer B is showing us what the conclusion is, or what the author's main point is, which is that these developments for the planes are more than likely going to assist in additional seating. This is something that the author in the stimulus claims.
i think because you are changing the probability now. You went from will to might
Will is a must word. That issues 100% certainty. The main sentence is that Harry or Ron will enroll in class. So we know at least one of them will enroll. It could be both of them, but one of them will
Cars that fly = subject
Cars (noun) that fly (verb) = this is a subject that is modified by what? A "flying" modification. It cuts down all cars to only those that fly. This is what modifiers do.
how does the statement of "companies that specialize in developing software and technology solutions are relatively limited in number..." support any of the other premises? I'm assuming you think "Job opportunities in the tech industry are expanding"? Yet the first sentence I mention how that doesn't support this. It actually weakens it.
If there is a limited amount of roles available, then how is opportunity expanding?
God-willing. We got this