The explanation video for Q11, PTM20 talks about two approaches for solving suspension questions, i.e. knock out and squeeze in. Where in the CC can I find the detailed tutorial for such approaches? Thanks a lot!
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I bombed in June, same score, 158! But I am back again!
#help
Regarding answer choice (C), it mentions "now that the waters are warmer". But the premise says that the water temperature is not the cause. So "now that the waters are warmer" is just there to distract us?
I was thinking the same. Then I realize that (B) talks about the frying pans covered by warranty work at least as well as the ones that are not covered by warranty. If we negate (B), the conclusion doesn't fall apart. Because if the frying pans covered by warranty don't work well, we can return it or seek reimbursement- it is still worthy to buy one..
My way of remembering them is that:
there are many SA conditions, and you just need minimal one to make the argument flow logically.
There are many NA conditions, and you need all of them. If one NA condition fails, the whole argument falls apart.
yes, "A some P" and "P some A" are the same. You can diagram interchangeably depending on how you diagram.
Can I also say "any" is a sufficient condition marker, and (C) says " any chance", so it is a sufficient condition, not the right answer choice that we are looking for?
#help (Added by Admin)
I think my approach is to focus on the conclusion "people who are especially overconfident are more likely to attempt to start a business". " Members of each group are overconfident" -- this includes business managers and entrepreneurs- people from both groups are overconfident. Since they are overconfident, they are more likely to attempt to start a business, and business managers should be in this scenario too. And this is how answer choice (D) strengthens it.
For answer choice (E), "business acumen" is new information, not necessarily strengthening the conclusion. As long as people are overconfident, they are more likely to attempt to start a business. It may or may not relate to their business acumen. Maybe they just got rich parents and the parents gave them lots of money. Then they were overconfident and went to start a business anyways.
I'm taking in November but would love to join!
Key words in Henry's statement " to reduce URBAN pollution..." and the other answer choices don't work.
The last sentence of the passage only says " an abstract and flexible written form had arrived. " But as this is about 3000 years BC, is it for modern languages? We don't know. However, the last sentence of the passage does support answer choice A.
The last sentence of the passage supports the author's view "unfortunately, ..redistributionist idea...", which the author doesn't agree with. So for (C), if we change it to "primary goods", the author disagrees, and we don't know Rawls' position.
also later in the last paragraph regarding situational ethics, the author stated "it does not follow... must relinquish all moral principles."
Q#26, I didn't read the stimulus carefully. It is about "internal relations". Definitely look for the answer from the 3rd and 4th paragraph.
Now I understand.
Premise 1: suspects --> CTO
Premise 2: MS include some CTO
Conclusion: Some MS-->suspects
A--> B (some C)
some C --> A, which is wrong
I’d like to join in. But I have short online meetings to do. So I may have to step out and back twice. I can create a zoom link, but I have to make someone the cohost, as I cannot be in the meeting the entire time
Hi, I am interested!
I'm interested!
I feel the same way....