User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT127.S2.Q14
User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Friday, May 28 2021

#help : i still dont really see why d strengthens this conclusion: why does it matter whether business managers who were overconfident in a present day poll were more likely to start businesses in the past? how does that support the conclusion that the more overconfident, the more likely to start a business? for all we know, those business managers could have been super under-confident when, in the past, they tried to start businesses. at least option e seems to strengthen the link between the premises and conclusions here by proposing a potential causal mechanism by which overconfidence would contribute to a higher propensity to start one's own business: you think you're better at it

User Avatar

Wednesday, Dec 27 2023

pranavbaskar674

pt #71 - reading #25

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely sentence/word-wise i have no friggin clue.

on a theoretical level, i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by the words of answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

User Avatar

Wednesday, Dec 27 2023

pranavbaskar674

pt #71 - reading #25

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely word-wise.

i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

User Avatar

Wednesday, Dec 27 2023

pranavbaskar674

pt #71 - reading #25

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely word-wise.

i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Tuesday, May 25 2021

v interested!

PrepTests ·
PT124.S1.Q20
User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Saturday, May 22 2021

omg, got this wrong because i forgot that sufficient assumptions were a thing and just treated this like an NA !

PrepTests ·
PT139.S1.Q5
User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Thursday, Jul 22 2021

I don't think I love JY's explanation here/agree with his grounds for eliminating A. I don't think the problem is that the type of exercise is unspecified; I think that's being a bit uncharitable to the answer choice. The general spirit of A is that exercise may be a lurking variable that might explain the results of the study. So, I do think, to some extent, knowing whether routine exercisers are more likely to drink decaff coffee does somewhat help in evaluating the arguments' validity.

Even still, I think you could get to C, and my reasoning is twofold:

1. Even if exercisers are "more likely" to drink decaff drinks, that difference could be totally minor/an infinitesimal edge - say, they're .05% more likely to drink decaff as opposed to caffeinated drinks. So knowing this wouldn't be all that helpful in evaluating the argument, since the difference in arthiritis between the two groups is double/200%.

2. More importantly / subsequently, the question asks what would be most helpful in evaluating the argument. While A kinda helps, C would be a much more helpful thing to know - if caffeine contributes to the generation/degeneration of connective issue, then that would be a causal mechanism that explains the difference + would add credence to the causal claim being made by the argument. On the other hand, knowing whether A is true would leave us with many questions: Is the specific type of exercise done by decaff coffee drinks likely to lead to tissue damage? Are routine exercises prone to drink decaff coffee or other decaff drinks - like coke or other sodas? In other words - evaluating the argument remains rather difficult, even granting A.

PrepTests ·
PT148.S1.Q24
User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Thursday, Jun 17 2021

individual → feature

Western ‑m→ feature

----------------

Therefore: indiv → Western

E follows same erroneous reasoning structure:

individual city → feature

regional econ hub ‑m→ feature

-----------------------------

Therefore: indivividual city → regional econ hub

A, though arguably flawed, doesn't follow the same structure:

individual city → mall

city w/ malls ‑m→ hub

--------------------------------

individual city → hub

User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Monday, May 10 2021

also definitely interested! for specifics, my best sections are reading and lr, and i'd love to talk through some lg sections with some people who've got it down! and then, of course, vice versa (if applicable :))

User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Wednesday, May 05 2021

hi! just started studying & interested!

User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Wednesday, May 05 2021

hi! just started studying in-depth & would be interested!

User Avatar
pranavbaskar674
Wednesday, May 05 2021

interested!

Confirm action

Are you sure?