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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.