- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Causes of the pain effect the intensity of the pain is how I read B. The stimulus doesn't say that the pain intensity was different, we're trying to show that there's no correlation in general to weather causes and pain. Without intensity this may be correct, but intensity of pain makes it wrong
The reason why B is wrong is because we know nothing about what the story tellers know. This assumes that all their stories had the intent to put narrative in their stories but it could just be random. C is stronger despite having the word "all". You could make a valid assumption from C, you can't from B
Trying to weaken the idea that sunscreen is unlikely to prevent skin cancer.
Why? Based on the fact that sunscreen usage has increased over the last 25 years but the incidence of skin cancer still grows
Well what if people haven't been using sunscreen long enough?
B - yes. I overthought this during BR. If skin cancer develops when you're older from when you were very young, then it makes sense why we continue to see an increase. Those people may not have started using sunscreen until they were way older. "Very young" should've been a hint.
E - E actually kind of strengthens. If those who use sunscreen the most are most susceptible to skin cancer and they still are seeing an increasing rate then wouldn't that allude to the fact that it may not be working? At first I thought that we keep seeing an increase because they were going to get cancer anyways but yes, I missed the word "belief"
Conclusion: If we want to raise the applicant pool, then we must raise tuition.
Why? Based off the idea that parents THINK that the quality of education and the price are related.
what must be true if it is true that we must raise the tuition in order to raise the applicant pool based on the above being only one idea of an explanation for it decreasing?
Honestly didn't have a prediction.
A - This AC is really scary because of how obvious it is. I kept going back and forth in my head being like NA answers are SUPPOSED to be obvious and the fact that it's question #25 so it should be harder than that. Ultimately A is the only right answer because if the proposed explanation DOESN'T apply in this case, then why would they think that raising the tuition would improve applicant rates? If it's not true, it leaves open the possibility for something else to fix the rate of applicants which destroys the conclusion.
B - Must this be true? no!!! Because it doesn't have to happen in every scenario. Yes, it has to be true AT this school, but not every school. Therefore, this is not the correct answer.
C - I spotted the suff/ necessary issue. Did i think that makes it the wrong answer? No, but it alerted it to me as a red flag. Ultimately this is similar to B in that it doesn;t have to be true because we must remember that there are diff options that can be made possible.
D - There doesn't just have to be one explanation just as there doesn't have to be one solution.
Conclusion: We should try the new marketing campaign.
Why? It's one way we can save it.
Notes: okay but it's not guaranteed to save it so why would we try something that's not guaranteed? What if there's something out there that would guarantee it to succeed? Weaken the idea that you should try that campaign. It could be a rlly bad idea if it doesn't succeed....
A - IDK if I would go as far to say that this strengthens, but it definitely does not weaken. It doesn't say anything about the new marketing, it only says stuff about the failure of teh new drug
B - Okay, and? Some of them do and some of them don't This doesn't weaken because what if this strategy is part of the ones that do?
C - way too strong
D - Yes, if we do the new marketing campaign, it will cause a negative effect in other areas of the company.
If large nursery -m-> sell primarily to commercial ras. growers
If large nursery -m-> only sell plants guaranteed to be disease free
These are the only conditional statements so what can we conclude form them?
If sell primarily to commercial ras growers -s-> only sell plants guaranteed to be disease free.
If you're John --> did not receive disease free plants
A - We don't know anything about if you're not a large nursery
B - No...stim doesn't say anything about this
C - No...stim doesn't say anything about this
D - Nope! ^
E - We know that most large nurseries sell primarily to commercial rasberry growers and we know that most of them guarantee their plants to be disease free. So, if Wallys is a large nursery (AKA, part of the most large nurseries), then we KNOW they guaranteed to at least sell plants that are disease free. This makes E correct because he received plants that had a disease!
Really need to just break this down to get it right. Conditional doesn't even rlly matter tbh
SA - What proves the conclusion true?
Conclusion: Retrospective studies cannot reliably determine the causes of human subjects characteristics.
Why? they must use the subjects reports of their past
The subjects reports of their past must not be reliable.
C - Proves that the studies cannot reliably determine the causes if they use the subjects reports
Conclusion: It is an over-exaggeration to say that humans will not survive the mission to mars.
Why? This is based on the fact that there's a well engineered back up at every stage. and if that's the case, then a fatal catastrophe is unlikely at any stage.
Flaw prediction: Just because one part of the system's backup is successful doesn't mean the next will. what id the astronauts can die from something else other than getting there?
A - Honestly, ignored this at first. I didn't see the whole to parts flaw 100%, but I knew to save it because of the language of "every" and "any". Ultimately, after POE, A is correct when you focus on the conclusion. they're trying to prove that it's an over exaggeration to say that the whole mission is fatal, based on the fact that each stage of the trip has a backup plan. But kind of like my prediction, what if it doesn't expect the unexpected that can be fatal? Just because each stage has a backup plan doesn't mean the whole mission does.
B - wrong because the stim isn't saying that it can't happen, it's just saying that it's unlikely due to the fact that there are systems in place.
C - never says something must happen
D - This is kinda tricky but ultimately you must follow the conclusion and the conclusion doesn't say that the something must happen, if anything it's saying it probably won't happen
In order to get this right, you must focus on the conlusion
Conclusion: if we eradicate lead from the homes, then childhood lead poisoning will be gone.
Based on the fact that 25% of homes still have lead poisoning.
But what if kids can still get lead poisoning from elsewhere? It never says anywhere that the 25% of homes are the only place you can get lead poisoning. This is why C is correct.
Under timed, E got me surprisingly and I think it's honestly because I forgot about AC C. But E is wrong because the author of the stimulus doesn't say this, they're just saying childhood lead poisoning in general will be eradicated, not that because kids only live in these homes will there be no more lead poisoning. This kind of even leads us back to C by saying they could get lead poisoning elsewhere. Mainly it's the fact that the stim is saying lead poisoning in children in general
Not D because the passage doesn't really go into how nature is an active force in other kinds of paintings
Not C because it's not about the sea, it's how the sea depicts nature
What strengthens the idea that the clovis point was not made in North America?
A - Yes that means that they were older than the ones in North America making it plausible that they were not made in NA
B - If the land bridge disappeared before any of the ones currently found, that would not give us any information as to when they were actually made. I guess you could say that if they were made in Siberia after the land brige disappeared then they weren't creared in America but what if they were made in America first?
Even great poems sometimes have readers that THINK they have contradictory ideas.
Therefore: It is wrong to think that the meaning of a poem is whatever the author intented to communicate through the poem.
(rephrased - poems are more than just what the author is trying to communicate)
Why? Because no one who writes a great poem intends to communicate contradictory ideas.
What MBT then?
Well while pondering for a prediction I am thinking about the fact that it must be true that people's opinoins are correct even though they're contradictory? Or maybe just that there's something that needs to be connected between the author and people's idea of what the poem means.
A - This doesn't have to be true for our conclusion to be true. People don't always have to agree/ disagree in order for poems to have more meaning
B - Tricky, but actually I feel like this doesn't have to be true because the author could have many intentions, that doesn't mean the poem isn't more than just their ideas.
C - What if they agree with what the author says but not each others outside interpretations?
D - Doesn't have to be true
E - Yes that must be true because if it wasn't, then it doesn't make sense that the authors poems are more than their intentions.
I honestly faked my prediction. I think the way you boil this down is just disecting the meaning of the text. It gets your brain to really narrow down on what we're looking for.
To get this right, you need to slow down and figure out what the stimulus is saying. You'll know for sure this is a harder question after reading the AC because at first glance there's three that could be a possibility.
Stimulus: if same hormones = shedding release of stress = reduction in emotional stress
Prediction: well what if they're crying BECAUSE they're super stressed, not because it's to reduce the stress? We see the hormones in the tears because it's caused by stress, not that it's reducing stress.
A - This could be true, but it doesn't explain the conclusion which is that the shedding of tears reduces the stress. Reading the AC over again and trying to understand it doesn't even rlly make sense because logically it doesn't even track - if crying produces a reduction in stress then the reduction in stress could be caused by something else? What?
C - trap because under timed you look at "cause" and think it's the right flaw. Here, first phenom = shedding tears and second phenom = reduction in stress. Why would a reduction in stress cause the shedding of tears? And if that was the case, wouldn't that mean that the first could cause the second still and the stimulus is not flawed?
E - Yes. The stimulus is saying that because of this hormone link, then the hormones being released through the shedding of tears must reduce stress but who's to say that?? correlation does not equal causation flaw! Hard to see honestly until breaking down and then rlly trying to eliminate AC's
What strengthens the idea that turmeric in curry dishes slows cognitive decline based on the fact that those who regularly eat curries for a longer period of time scored the best on the cognitive function tests?
E - I guess strengthens this the best out of all the AC because it's saying the more turmeric you eat, the better their cognitive decline was.
All other AC weaken or don't matter.
If you go to Harrison --> live in Pulham or Westerville
38% of all Harrison students take at least one night class.
Of all the students living in Westerville, only 29% take at least one night class.
(of the 100% of the 38% of students that take at least one night class at harrison, of the kids part of that 100% live in westerville, and only 29% of the students who live in westerville take night classes - this is not 29% of the students who take night classes.
A - Honestly can only really get to AC A by POE unless you're good at math which I am not.
B - B is wrong because it can be a huge population that lives in Pulham. They're counting on the fact that you're mixing up the numbers. It could only be like 15% of Pulham's population and still equate to the rest of the students at harrison that take night classes outside of the Westerville kids.
In order to get this correct under timed, you must simplify what it's saying. I find that wordy stimulus like this require you to actually look at it simply because under timed it makes you think you understand it simply but then you get confused by AC.
Countries with the most severe penalties for drunk driving = smallest percentage of accidents with alcohol use.
THEREFORE: Would-be drunk drivers ARE deterred by the prospective of severe penalties.
What undermines/ weakens idea of the conclusion? OR strengthens the idea that would-be drunk drivers actually ARENT deterred by the prospective of severe penalties?
Prediction: They're not actually deterred by anything and there just aren't that many accidents in general.
A - This doesn't do anything for us. So what if the largest countries do not have severe penalties? Doesn't tell us anything about deterrence. I think under timed I thought this would imply that the countries just have a larger population but that would force the assumption that the country with the most severe penalties is small which is totally not a valid assumption...
B - Yes, if severe penalties are only in place where drinking is rare, then it's a valid assumption to say that this may be a country where severe penalties are in place AND drinking is rare which would account for the small percentage of accidents involving alcohol. It gives us another reason for why there's a small percentage (not being the severe penalties); ultimately, weakening the conclusion
We know caffeine causes more calcium to leave body. Teens who drink more carbonated bevs break bones more than those who don't drink as many carbonated bevs. Calcium deficiency makes bones break more easily.
Therefore, teens must be breaking bones more easily and drinking carbonated bevs must be breaking the bones due to the caffeine. CAFFEINE.
The caffeine is what I forgot about. Long stim I should map out. We are trying to weaken the idea that the caffeine causes the bone breakage but what if it's actually because they're just not drinking enough milk? A reduced amount of calcium makes bones more brittle, yes, but that doesn't mean that a higher amount of caffeine makes the bones brittle to the point of no breakage.
I chose E because I was looking for an alternative reasoning but I would need way too many assumptions in order to say E is right. If E was right it'd have to be that the kids are drinking more calcium or something to make up for the fact that they're losing calcium in the soda. Can't assume that.
I should've read the full first sentence of the passage again- "Limited" would've gotten me to C
A is wrong because their reasoning is based on the fact that your payment should not be determined by subjective evaluation.
A being wrong led me to C being correct. Is it perfect? NO. I was really hesitant because of the word "determined" in the premise, but when thinking about it I guess the AC C doesn't mean that other professions payment isn't determined by it as well just because it's only a certain degree.
What MBT if it is true that THE GOVERNMENTS to stop regulation of the airlines HAS DISADVANTAGED people who lack access to major intl. airports?
MBT that the regulation of the governments provided something for the people.
D - Yes, MBT because if they were keeping the less profitable airlines BECAUSE of the GOVERNMENTS regulations, then that means that they may have abandoned the less profitable airlines BECAUSE they not longer were required by the GOVERNMENT which MBT if its the GOVERNMENTS that disadvantaged people. At first I thought "well we don't know this for sure" but thats the whole point of a MBT question- if it wasn't true, then our conclusion wouldn't follow
E - trap answer but it does not have to be true because sure, they could've been great airlines. Doesn't mean that the government didn't disadvantage ppl still even if they weren't. Can't assume that service of same quality means flying
I got tripped up by the fact that "Most" means 51-100%. I went with E because I was like "well what if it's 100%", but what I didn't consider/ let myself be swayed by is the fact that Parallel reasoning calls for the exact same reasoning so if there's wiggle room, my AC should have wiggle room also
E -If you're an independent owner and you don/t sell tropical fish but you do sell Exotic birds??? Wrong understanding. We ONLY know that if you're IO, then you sell gerbils. That's it. Not selling tropical fish but selling exotic birds is SUFF for selling gerbils, not anything else. Need to write this out because it's asking you to make a whole new conditional sentence that we don't have.
D - If IO --> G --> EITHER OR Not Tropical Fish OR you sell Exotic birds. If you negate it and say, independent stores DO sell tropical fish and not exotic birds, then they would sell Gerbils. And if gerbils are sold then it must be necessary that they're not an independent store