That is an amazing achievement. Congratulations!!! You have been so valuable to me in my study process. You have a very strong GPA and with your score you have an excellent shot at some of the best schools. I understand about the psychological effect of having a "7" in your score and we all know that schools are heavily score oriented but if I were you I would probably weigh that decision based on what your average practice test score is now and whether or not you feel burned out. Based on my conversations with schools I don't think that, for instance, a one point difference between 169 and 170 would make that much difference especially since you will be applying pretty early in the process. However, if your practice tests average is usually much higher and you can go into the next test feeling relaxed knowing that you already have one awesome score under your belt than it may be worth it depending on your goals. This test is so incredibly stressful so it would really have to be worth it for me to go at it again.

That's my two cents anyway :)

Whatever you do, I think you will end up where you are supposed to be. So, happy for you :)

So, this statement is a subsidiary conclusion and it is required for our main conclusion that "life on earth may have started when living microbes were carried from Mars.

So, it is a necessary/required condition to the main conclusion. If there are no microbes on Mars, then how can we conclude that they were carried from Mars?

It does not ensure the truth of the conclusion, since even though there may be microbes on Mars, that doesn't prove, that microbes on Earth were carried from Mars. They could have come from Venus, for instance :)

This question is so tricky. Marife essentially is saying it is classified as a murder mystery but really shouldn't be because it violated some important requirement. Nguyen is saying that it shouldn't be classified as a murder mystery in the first place. I chose D as well but D is wrong because it is saying that they disagree over whether or not it is appropriate to find some universal criteria that all mystery movies (and murder mysteries are a subset of mystery movies) must meet and neither one of them talks about that.

Hope it helps.

I thought that modern historians challenging the traditional view could mean that they are saying that since we do not have enough documentation we can't really conclude that he was a cruel tyrant. So, I took this as a lack of evidence assumption and it looked like AC A was asserting that assumption by saying, yes, we have so little evidence on Caligula that it is less than most other emperors of his era so how can we conclude that he was anything, cruel or nice or whatever. AC A focuses on the first half of the last sentence about lack of documentation and AC C focuses of the second half of that sentence that they were written by the enemies. How do we know which half to really focus on? Also, doesn't AC C makes us assume that just because he had enemies those enemies were willing to plagiarize writings about other tyrants? I mean every famous political figure has enemies and some of those enemies could write articles that are based in facts and are not necessarily biased sort of like ad hominem error we are taught to evaluate the argument not the person making it in this case the "enemy"

So, I guess I am still confused about the interpretation of the stimulus and think interpreting as a lack of evidence also makes sense. Can you please help me understand.

I had similar thinking as you that the kids who completed the chess program had more gumption if you will so it's not the chess program per se that increased their academic performance but the kids' "stick with it" mentality that causes them to do well academically but our stimulus is not comparing the academic performance of kids who completed the chess program vs those who didn't. We just know from our stimulus that the kids who completed the chess program did better academically. It is entirely consistent with our stimulus that the kids who completed the program had very low GPAs to start with and then increased them after completing the program. And so we are tasked with weakening the assumption that it's the chess that caused that improvement and comparing two different groups of kids in this case will not explain why this particular group of kids did increase their performance.

For AC C why can't we take the statement that "it will be highly desirable to other collectors in the future" as failing the necessary condition of "not just for its value as an investment?" I thought perhaps she is looking at it with potential investment in mind thereby failing our necessary condition so she shouldn't buy.

#help

I am still confused by this question. Definition of "results from" is If a situation or problem results from a particular event or activity, it is caused by it. So, to me AC B says Amusia is caused more from an inability to discern pitch than from an inability to discern timing. What do we know about what causes Amusia? Nothing, from what I can see. What if Amusia is caused by a blow to the head and then a symptom of Amusia is their inability to discern pitch. This is probably an English reading issue. Can someone please re-phrase AC B in a way that is the same conceptually but stated differently?

#help

I am still confused by this question. Definition of "results from" is If a situation or problem results from a particular event or activity, it is caused by it: So, to me AC B says Amusia is caused more from an inability to discern pitch than from an inability to discern timing. What do we know about what causes Amusia? Nothing, from what I can see. What if Amusia is caused by a blow to the head and then a symptom of Amusia is their inability to discern pitch. This is probably an English reading issue. Can someone please re-phrase AC B in a way that is the same conceptually but stated differently?

Our conclusion is: those with a tendency to laugh have greater ability to recover even when they laugh a little than those who don't have a tendency to laugh but laugh a greater amount.

What is our evidence for this conclusion? We know that laughter can help you recover. We also know that those who had a tendency to laugh to begin with had greater gains in immune function. So, the author says it must be this propensity to laugh that is helping them to recover regardless of how much they laugh. Wait, what if how much they laugh has everything to do with their recovery. You can't just ignore than fact and take for granted that it must be their tendency to laugh that is causing their recovery.

AC B: Fails to address that those whose tendency to laugh was greatest already had stronger immune systems. So, if they had stronger immune systems, are we to assume it is because of the immune system that they are recovering in which case laughter does not matter much. They can laugh a little and still recover. This is compatible with our conclusion and we know this argument is flawed and this does not point to why it is flawed.

AC C: Presumes that hospital patients have immune systems representative of the entire population. Our premises and conclusion are about hospital patients so it is not wrong to use them as our sample population.

AC D: Takes for granted that gains in immune system strength did not themselves influence patients' tendency to laugh. So, what does this really say, the author assumed a lack of connection between immune system and tendency to laugh when there may be a connection. So, let's say there is a connection between stronger immune system and tendency to laugh and author failed to take that into consideration. Ok, does this help me support or refute that those with the tendency to laugh have a greater ability to laugh even whey they laugh a little as compared to those who don't have a tendency to laugh but laugh a lot. No, this does nothing for my conclusion. How we obtained or enhanced our tendency to laugh whether it be via stronger immune system or not does not affect our conclusion.

AC E: Presumes that those whose tendency to laugh was the greatest to begin with recovered more rapidly than other patients. Yes, the author presumes this but did they recover rapidly because of their tendency to laugh or because they just laughed a lot. Misses the flaw entirely.

Wow, this question really tests your ability to stay on task and not be distracted.

Just for my own clarity. If we are to negate frequently consulted to not frequently consulted it is not correct to assume that it is rarely consulted because for instance we may have never consulted or at the other extreme consulted all the time. For AC E, JY says, not frequently consulted could just be sometimes consulted. The difference between frequently and sometimes is subjective, isn't it?

#help

So, all contemporary artists believe that their work can make many people more fulfilled. And our author is saying, no you guys are wrong, we already have tons of existing great works so thanks but no thanks. Well, the gap is what if some people don't have access to existing great works of art and they can indeed be more fulfilled by the contemporary artwork.

Now, AC E is tricky, the amount and variety of existing great artworks affects the degree of our fulfillment of contemporary works. So, for instance we have a million existing works and because of that the amount of our fulfillment of contemporary art is zero. I think this is already stipulated in the author's premises. So, AC E does not show us the flaw of the argument. We need an answer that points to the gap in the reasoning not something that is compatible with our premises.

I was between C and D but the main reason I thought C is wrong is not because of the "few" wording. So, what if few provisions are bad but most are not? It may still not be good enough to stop quibbling even though this is better than the traditional code. C also talks about "thus far been criticized." Just because someone thinks and criticizes something as un-necessary does not mean it really is un-necessary. Opinions don't equal facts. AC C is a much stronger weakening in that it's not a matter of someone's opinion. It is flat out telling us that problematic rules are being eliminated.

So, the columnist concluded that this practice (and we have to be very clear on what this practice refers to. This practice is referring specifically to the practice of US banning certain pesticides for use un US but then exporting them to other countries.) harms people's health not only in those countries but in US as well. Why? because these pesticides get imported back on agricultural products to US. So, what if other countries besides US produce and export this pesticide and it is very easy to obtain it from sources other than US then US people may end up with the same harmful agricultural products even if US stops exporting them. So, I think the main thing to catch was to understand that the practice in the stimulus is specific to US and in order to effect change in the global economy we need more than just a change in one member of that global economy.

P: Money Disappears due to loss of belief

C: Money does not exist

SA: If Money Disappears due to loss of belief then Money does not Exist

or if Money exists then it cannot be that it Disappears due to loss of belief

Put more generally if something exists then it cannot be the case that it can disappear with the loss of belief.

When legislators discover that some public service is not adequate their most common response is to give them more money. Because of this, the least efficient bureaucracies are the ones most commonly receiving more money.

P: Legislators discover public service not adequate→most commonly receiving an increase

C: The least efficient bureaucracies→Most commonly receiving an increase

Missing premise: The least efficient bureaucracies→Legislators discover public service not adequate

This is very much like an NA but works as a MSS question type as well because we know that in both the conclusion and the premise we have most commonly receiving an increase so the two ideas in the sufficient condition can be conflated.

Town A. has been heavily salting its' roads for 20 years and now has 100 ml of salt per liter. In another town which is similar to the way town A. was 20 years ago only has 10 ml of salt per liter. At 250 ml of salt per liter the water tastes too salty. Therefore, if we continue salting at present levels the water will be too salty over the next few decades. So, the argument assumed that town A started with 10 ml per liter as well just like the nearby town and the 90 ml increase is due to heavy salting. So, at present levels then in another 20 years we will have another 90 ml for a total of 190 ml per liter and then in another 20 years another 90 will make it 280 which is over the threshold. But if we assume that town A started with 90 ml and only increased by 10 ml in 20 years then in another 20 years it will be 110 and in another 20 years 120 ml per liter. So, it will take more than the next few decades to reach the threshold.

So, the conclusion says stop the trend of not using the lab equipment which is essentially don't use computers for lab experiments use actual lab equipment. So, why couldn't A weaken the support by saying so many rapid changes are taking place nowadays that the only way to keep up is to use computers instead of lab equipment?

#help

Ok. So, humans are probably predisposed to paying more attention to certain kind of music because little babies are predisposed to paying more attention to certain kind of music. According to the argument the reason they are predisposed is biological in nature. One way to strengthen this is to say that since babies never heard any kind of music before, their predisposition could not have been due to them being exposed to it in the past. So, this eliminates one alternative explanation and makes the author's explanation of biological predisposition more likely.

I initially thought the gap was going from babies to all humans in the conclusion and chose A. AC A does not strengthen that predisposition is biological in nature. If babies, older children and adults all prefer this type of music we still don't know the reason for this preference, is it biological or cultural?

Coffee and Tea has M. and M. increases Vasopressin. V. causes blood clumping which is worse for women than men. Women also have higher risk of complications from angioplasty. So, if they have a higher risk of complications and Vasopressin is already higher for women than men, then tea and coffee might further increase their risks of complications. Therefore, no tea or coffee prior to angioplasty but really not prior to anything if you have any type of heart issue it seems to me but I will have to take prior to angioplasty as correct answer choice.

Thank you for all of your help. You are the best :)

:)

I think this is bad causal reasoning flaw in reverse. Usually author will assume some sort of a causal relationship merely from correlation and here the author is denying causal relationship by saying antivirus programs did not protect computers against the virus because only 1,000 cases reported worldwide and our job is to identify that antivirus software might have caused/prevented more cases of damage.

Minor Premise: Since violent crimes are very rare

Sub Conclusion and Minor Premise: Newspapers are likely to print them

Sub Conclusion 2: Because newspapers are printing a lot of violent crime stories

Conclusion: The claim that there is a lot of violent crime is not true.

It was easier for me to rearrange the premises this way to see the circular reasoning. I didn't see it initially b/c I was focusing on Sub Conclusion 2 and the Main Conclusion which are not the same thing. But these premises are building on each other starting with a minor premise which is a restatement of our main conclusion.

This is an invalid appeal to public opinion which is a type of Appeal Fallacies. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it a fact. Opinions don't equal facts.

Prephrase: Post modernism views reject modernism views. Modernism views are seen as limited by the time in which they were created. Irregularity and chaos are now believed to be important as opposed to the belief in universal truth.

Therefore, there is no such thing as universal truth and there are lots of irregular events.

This is Appeal Fallacies flaw -- There is a huge difference between beliefs/opinions vs. facts. We can't jump from opinion to fact or from fact to opinion unless there is an appropriate expert to back it up.