I had same question. But revisited it again coming up w/ an idea: Negating (B) I thought would be consistent w/ the argument. Stimulus said, "most research scientists employed in private industry now earn 50% more than do comparably skilled research scientists employed by the government." It leaves the room for some research scientist in private industry does not earn 50% more than do comparably skilled research scientists employed by the government. If think one example, it could be the case that 1 government-employed researchers make more than the highest paid private-employed. So, even if negate (B), it would not completely destroy the argument. It is consistent. How would you think?
I am actually also revisit the question, figuring out a quicker way doing this. It has a conditional logic there, if criminals have the knowledge of prompt punishment ->they will hesitate to break the laws. [A] weakens because it meets sufficient but fails necessary. If the criminals have the knowledge of prompt punishment while taking the potentially chargeable action (say involuntary manslaughter), the criminal will not be deterred because law does not even set 'premeditation' as part of the test. That is being said, if criminal is aware of law while committing the crime, he will not be deterred at all because at the end of the day law says you are fine. A gives room for a met sufficient, failed necessary.
I had a mac os system and when downloading chat box, for some reason I cannot open the file. I called a number listed in the lsac email and a nice guy guided me through but still did not fix the problem. I reboot my home wifi and computer but still did not work. I was literally sweating and shaking at that point. Finally I decided to pull out my husband's laptop( with a windows system) and thankfully it allowed me run through. But still spent almost an hour just fixing the technical problem, really sucks. I still not sure why that happens.
What does E mean, I still don't get it. Bauer thinks being over zealous about issuing tickets is not that bad since it is better than doing nothing? "Implausible alternative" meaning the suggested scenario "no enforcement" would never actually happen in the real world? "No enforcement" does not look like an alternative to me, I feel like he's giving a hypo that goes to the extreme. I understand "alternative" as one of the two or more possible options/ways. But Bauer seems think there is only two options out there, one way or other, either enforce or not enforce. #help
I also chose [B] but [B] seems reversed the logic. [B] says: move -->similar. Stimulus is looking for: similar -->move.
Because I know that a C reason causing A+B is such a common answer choice does not mean that they are always the correct answer. [D] was so attractive to me that I did not even see [E]. Maybe remind myself watch out next time seeing a typical cookie cutter flaw reason, they might be a trap in disguise. The conclusion is that O culture influenced S culture. [D] does not really touch that, it just said "responsible for creating the very first tomb of this kind," a third civilization created it, nothing said to prove S is impacted by the this 3rd civilization. Looking back now I think the gap is that O is the only culture S contacted and have that kind of tombs does not necessarily mean S is influenced by O, it could be S influenced O.
I think this is not a tricky question but I lost the strategy completely when seeing not enough time left to complete last 5 questions. [D] just says they contradict, the stimulus gives us a solution that if there's any sort of opposite opinion exist, we will take them in as long as that's what medieval epistemologists believed. [E] points out a more fundamental issue. If we do not even know who is the ep, then we can barely do anything for the next step of identifying what they believed.
I chose D completely misread the stimulus, it says the profits was much smaller this year than last year's, but I read as profits increase was smaller (this year's profit increase compare to last year, last year's compare to the year before), thinking well the increase of profit is less compare this year to last year from the year before does not mean net profit of this year is smaller than last year's, it may still increase, but just increase lesser compare to last year from the year before. But that is completely wrong, and stimulus said nothing wrong on this point. It does say profits was much smaller this year than last year's, so the profits of this year did not increase over last year's profits, sufficient failed. I should already noticed a much more fundamental problem at seeing "unfair" at the premise as necessary condition, but "fair" as the conclusion. Unfair at necessary could only lead to a fair at sufficient condition in the conclusion.
I watched the video and get a better understanding what [D] says. I chose [D] because did not accurately understood the emphasis of the stimulus and rushed to making the choice without thinking through other ones.
I think as explained [D] is repeating sth. already be accepted as part of its premises. We know for sure that if it is a malignant, we should remove it, but we do not have that kind of certainty when polyps turns out to be nonmalignant. The problem lies at when it turns out to be nonmalignant (instead of malignant as [D] emphasizes), then we might have risked doing things that at the end of the day not necessarily to be done. And [B] helps eliminate that uncertainty and confirm that when polyps turns out to be nonmalignant, we indeed did sth. that is not necessarily required.
I also tried to negate [D], which turns out not as much helpful as negating [B]. Negating [D] is like when polyps malignant and we do not remove it. It kinda conflicts the stimulus, the stimulus says it is the risk that it might be malignant leads docs to remove them. So docs are certain they should get p removed when they are malignant.
I chose [C] because I was getting into the choice blindly without even thoroughly read the stimulus. I thought there's a gap between violation of the corporate income tax v.s. auditing the corporate income tax, maybe auditing is not telling the whole story of the compliance. But the stimulus has said that "audits is the primary tool to address this violation." Also, as explained by the video, even if most of audit does not show any violation still some might reveal, but the problem is that nothing was complete at all.
Is it that you assumed X2=X1? Or that you think is it that [D] assumes X1=X2, so why we do not assume X2=X1 for [C]? I think while [C] plays with the number issue [D] spots on a much more fundamental problem. What if their data tested on a different model other than what WB looks for? If WB's business model is way bigger than the one FM tested on, it would trump whatever FM tested on and the results turned back would be meaningless. I think [D] is trying to say let's address this issue first, then we can talk about data.
I think we do not know about what happens from X1 to X2, even if Y2 is easier than Y1 and Y2 is easier than X2, but X2 still can be way more difficult than X1?
Say 1-10 difficulty, 10 is hardest,1 is the easiest. The lower of the total number, the better of the ranking.
If X1 is 4 easier than Y1 (5). Y2 is 3, easier than both X1 and Y1. Z2 overall still could be bigger than Z1 if X2 exceed 7.
Also I find [E] maybe more of interpreting humans' behavior. If I like you, then I will protect you (the feeling of affections is displayed through an altruistic behavior). Chimps are like showing others affections then receive protection from others. I guess that does not really explain how that comes an altruistic behavior unless assuming those who helping the chimps are justing "displaying" their reciprocal affection.
I think I understand what your saying. Just some of my personal thoughts/inputs for your reference.
"Usually/mostly" is more than 50% (could be anywhere from 50% plus 1 to 100%). The negation form of "usually" could be from 0%-50%. In the range of 0%-50%, it could include "never" and "sometimes" as "usually"'s negation form.
"Sometimes" I am not sure, but my understanding is that it could include anywhere from 0%-100%. And I agree that "sometimes" could be included in "mostly/usually", but what's included in one form doesn't make it automatically excluded from the same one's negated form.
He's trying to negate [E], saying could be "sometimes" or "never" displayed through altruistic behavior, then he said "never" is not the case, because it would look like destroy the argument since there's an example in the stimulus that shows certain altruistic behavior from the chimp. (and after a negation test if that destroy the argument will make it a correct answer choice) so then he corrected it saying still "sometimes" looks ok, and it will not completely destroy the argument. I think that makes sense to me.
But it's just my personal reflection that [E] is wrong because it focus on a different perception other than what stimulus trying to argue. The conclusion of the argument is: humans are more likely to protect who they have feelings of affection. The support given is an analogy example:Those chimps who display affection towards others are more likely to be protected. In which way feelings of affection are displayed was not the issue, rather there is a gap between chimps feeling affection and receive protection/defenses while humans feeling affections and giving out protection.
However, I actually chose [E] since I thought it fills that gap. My thought is that is that it could be interpreted as "if I feel affections towards you then I will protect you. (like humans giving out helps)"; or"if you feel my affection, you will protect me. (like chimps receiving helps from others)." But in either way around, that will include only what conclusion says or what premise says. It will not help bring premise and conclusion together as [B] did.
I find really getting into the core of the argument might help. There's some contextual info are not necessarily directly related to the premise-conclusion. And some wrong answers are talking things not directly related to the core.
Like I was tripped by the contexts of this questions, but thinking it twice, they are not the key of the argument. The core really lies at the later part of the stimulus starting at "because.." I find that the stimulus' key is about deliberately stop LF + not resume ->manslaughter. But [A], [B] more like talking about death, which is a close concept but not the same as saying bring a pause of LF then not bring them back, say [A] it might result in death and may not, but weather dead or not is not part of the conditional statement/rule element. Similarly [B], it says high risk of death + actual death->manslaughter, it is not same as stoping LF without brining them back. Surely the surgery is risky, but whether actually dead or not is not part of the rule to find one guilty, when you deliberately stop LF without brining it back is sufficient. [A] and [B] kind of like raising the bar higher than what is actually required by the rule.
I tend to eliminate [C] rather quickly when it switch and put the result at the beginning. [E] just thought informed consent and the treatment thing was not part of the rule.
But relating core to answer choices is kind of my universal strategy, but I have the same issue that tend to read casually/neglect some key details without thinking through in timed sec. And I have a bad habit bringing a pre-determined mindset, thinking some part of the descriptive words in the answer choices are wrong, then I will eliminate very quickly not even give it a chance; but sometimes I feel like some questions need to think from a different perspective, and be inclusive/open-minded, especially like weakening/strengthening they might give a seemingly "out of scope" type answer but if I think it thoroughly, would bring an oh-ha moment, but sometimes I just very quickly eliminate them without even think it through.
I was actually struggled w/ understanding the stimulus itself. Those enemies that writing "histories" are historians living in the same reign that Caligula were in power? Or someone not in that era but researching and making up things about Caligula given there's little docs survived?
If historians were living while Caligula is in power, so I understand now what (C) says is Caligula is actually not that bad and enemies have no real resources but just enemies need to write sth. bad about him, so they copy and paste some other bad emperors' characters.
But I initially thought if those enemies writing thing while Caligula is in power, is what they wrote counted as documentations, and there's little documentations out there, so what they have written is actually very real things and have high value?
I know that ABDE are bad choices now, but C looks like requires quite a bit of open-mindedness to be on the same page of the question designer, isn't it.
#help
Fremont:
Has no background in oil industry
---
Is not a viable candidate
(Translate: no background in oil industry -->not viable candidate ; Viable candidate --> have background in oil industry)
Galindo:
Had background & did not success
---
An oil industry background is no guarantee of success
(Translate: wrong[oil industry background --> success])
Fremont is basically arguing that having a background in oil industry is necessary for being a viable candidate, that is being said, without such an experience, the candidate will not be a viable candidate, not to say bring about a future success of the company.
While Galindo is disagreeing on a different thing, G's argument focus on proving an argument, "having an oil industry background is a guarantee of a success" is wrong. That is being said, Galindo considers an oil industry is sufficient to bring about a success, rather than required as suggested by Fremont.
I think (E) is saying that Galindo only give us single one instance to reach a general conclusion/to support an argument. But that is not the issue w/ Galindo's argument because G is not trying to proving an argument. Rather, his goal is simply to negate one argument: an oil industry background is no guarantee of success. And to negate one argument, all what is needed is one counterexample. And that is exactly what Galindo is doing. So Galindo is not wrong about proving his own argument. The issue is just that G is talking a different argument other than the one Fremont is trying to prove.
Hey maybe anyone have taken the test can help me with a question re room requirements. Do I need to clear out all the stuff in the room and leave only a desk or is it ok that the private room have bunch of kids stuff and drawers/kids playground etc.? Thanks.
I had a prediction that maybe the phosphates decreased because residents dumped polluted water somewhere else. But (D) is saying a different thing. It just told me more than 50% of the phosphates sourced from parts of the waterway other than the water treatment plan in the muni. This is just a pure fact, which doesn't tell me anything if that composition ever fluctuated or increased over the year. So that does not help explain why "decreased" happened after banning.