When will it be in person in 2022? Has the exact month been announced?

Stimulus:

Oxy18 heavier than Oxy.

In raincloud, ocy18 rarer than oxy

In raincloud rainfall = higher PROPORTION of all water molecules containing oxy18 falls down to earth vs oxy

Example: 30% of oxy18 falls down to earth while 20% of oxy falls down to earth.

Tension:

This raincloud that is raining went from Atlantic Ocean to Amazon forests... you would expect oxy18 to be lost because a higher proportion of it dropped, yet there is STILL the same content of oxy18 at the end. WHY?

A) Don't care about unfrosted regions. Does not address the tension: How come over forested regions, the content of oxy18 was the same?

B) As soon as we love oxy18, it gets replenished back into the cloud. As it loses, it gains it back!

C) Amount of rainfall = amount of rain originally collected. This contradicts the stimulus. Said by lizardking1: If this were the case, all of the water molecules would be used up after reaching the Amazon. The oxygen 18 levels wouldn’t even remotely be constant. This doesn’t work at all.

D) The amount of rain gets recycled into the atmosphere (good so far) from the leaves of forest vegetation is EQUAL to the amount of rain in river runoffs that it not recycled into the atmosphere. So if we have 100 rain, 50 of it goes back into the atmosphere and the other 50 go into rain runoffs are not recycled? Well that's not good. That doesn't help to explain why the rain content was THE SAME at the end, esp. if half of this isn't even recycled back into the atmosphere.

E) Don't care about the effects.

Stimulus:

Japanese AC more reliable than US.

Yet, both lifetime is the same (15 years)

Tension: We think more reliable means longer lifetime.

A) Reliability has nothing to do with lifetime, but rather, how long a product can go without repair. Sure, they both last 15 years, but with reliability defined, Japanese only needs to be repaired 0 to 1 time, while US needs way more repairs than that.

B) Idc where they are made from

C) Don't care about shipping and installation and it being the same

D) Ok and? Just because it's been in the US longer that means??? Nothing.

E) Tempting AC - tells us why Japanese is more reliable. But we do we care about why it is more reliable? It ignores the tension, and the second part of the stimulus. If it's more reliable, then why is the lifetime the same for both J and US? Does not address tension.

Stimulus:

Cost plus type 1 : person gets % of profit. Profit comes from the costs of the project.

Cost plus type 2; Fixed price: Agreed set amount of money (no percentage) to be paid

For cost plus, the higher the profit, the higher the profit for the contractor. So the contractor wants to work for a project that has an inflated estimate, where they will push the actual costs up because it is in it for them to do that.

But paradoxically, cost overruns (actual costs being over the estimate) are actually more common in FIXED profit. WHY?

D) Clients billed under a cost-plus contract (which is BOTH type 1 and 2) are free to review what they are getting into. Well if this is the case, the force for contractors to inflate it goes DOWN, because clients are able to review and be like "Uh, why is this so jacked up high? Stop it" AND this only exists in where the contractor's profit can vary (aka type 1).

E) This AC doesn't help, but just makes the paradox worse. It's saying that in fixed profit contracts, cost estimates are HUGELY inflated, which implies then that the actual costs are even more so inflated, contributing the a higher cost overrun.

A) This explains the discrepancy. Smoking in bed to House fires don't tend to kill people, that's why the decrease in cig smoking has nothing to do with the no decline in number of people killed in home fires

B) this makes the discrepancy worse in my opinion. if home fires caused by smoking in bed occurs when the smokers are asleep, you best believe they will die and there be an INCREASE in the # of people killed in home fires

C) Smokers who smoke in bed are less likely to quit. ahh, yes, this then explains that they do NOT count in the decline in cigarette smoking, so the # of people killed in home fires has no affect bc the smokers in bed did not quit, and can be very likely contributing to deadly house fires (hence, no decline in the # of people killed in home fires).

D) In the kitchen? Oh okay, then yeah that explains that even outside of smokers, a good amount comes from those in the kitchen hence no decrease in the number of people killed in home fires.

E) Population increased, so if there is one home fire, your neighbors dead too hence no decline in the number of people killed in home fires.

Combined with chaplinlin response:

Tension: how is it possible for oil contamination and PAH levels to drop after the war even though there’s been a lot of oil fires/spills during the war (when oil production slowed down)?

C) Wrong bc it only reconciles for PAH but not for the oil contamination in the same Persian gulf war region. Also, and correct me if I am wrong, who said the Persian Gulf war region was a desert region? The stimulus only says the baltic sea is a temperate region.

D) Right because before the war (when oil production didn’t slow down), it created a lot of PAHs and oil spills (peacetime production) but since during the war, oil production slowed down, it makes sense for there to be less PAHs and oil contamination.

Stimulus: Over the 10 years, there has been a 6x increase in govt funding for wetland preservation. Yet, the preservation has increased by only 2x.

Our question? Does the 6x in funding mean that the preservation of only 2x is not enough? How is the funding not enough / inadequate then?

A) Mismanaged, okay? But what about the increase in funding and that not being enough for what has been done for preservation?

B) Do not care about salaries

C) Great, we are better able to know where preservation is needed. But again, how does this answer our question?

D) Do not care about who is working on preservations

E) As said by chaplin:

A sixfold increase might sound like a lot, but it’s relative to what the starting point is.

If the starting point is at $1 million, then $6 million is a lot.

If the starting point is at $1, then $6 is beyond inconsequential.

How is $6 going to help preserving the wetlands?

A) This is a trap AC bc it allows for some leeway in the last sentence: "anything more extensive" vs "property owners are sometimes allowed exemptions"

B) We do not care about what is in the best interest

C) No? It said city council views property rights as the utmost importance?

D) this explains why the city council is so strict. without the prohibitions, neighbors would be able to do whatever the hell they want to other properties that do not belong to them.

E) This does not explain anything in terms of respecting my property rights yet being so strict.

supposition: an idea that something may be true, although it is not certain:

Can anyone explain what the stimulus means?

My confusion, blatantly said: What does it mean to go BEYOND the save life the pieties? If anything, didn't they do the opposite of going beyond by stating like "fuck the elephants, don't save them bc preservation of them may endanger human lives"...

How does it make sense to go BEYOND the save the wild life pieties and then talk shit about wildlife (lack of better words)? I am so confused with what the stimulus is saying.

So I assumed the conclusion is NOT in support and chose AC C.

#help

Thank you!

28. Which one of the following is most supported by the information above?

MSS

21. Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?

Strengthen

Why?

#help (Added by Admin)

Disagreement: What gives valid reason to remove the sculpture? Artistic merit (Monica) or public opinion (Hector)

Monica: Necessary assumption is that artistic merit determines whether or not the sculpture should be removed.

Hector: Public opinion determines if it should be removed or not.

A) Neither mentioned this. There is no mix of public opinion and artistic merit. Monica thinks that artistic merit determines if we should remove it or not, NOT public opinion determines artistic merit.

B) sufficient artistic merit - neither talked about the baseline of how much artistic merit is needed

C) Neither mention the ONLY reason to remove a work of art.

D) Benefits by remaining → has artistic merit. There was never a mix of benefitting the people with artistic merit. In other words, they never mentioned that artistic merit is necessary to benefit the people.

E) Monica def thinks this determines whether or not the sculpture should stay or not. While Hector disagrees and thinks it's the public opinion.

Lots of inferences from the stimulus.

Inferences stated clearly:

Steven: social drinkers pose a threat to the highway safety

Miguel: No, they don't as much as the heavy drinkers, THEY, the heavy drinkers, are the ISSUE (the THREAT).

A) Once you see the inference above, then this AC is clear.

B) Meaning, the higher blood alcohol, the ability to drive safely is less safe. Sure, yeah, both may agree with this, but this wasn't inferred as the point of disagreement. They are disagreeing about WHO is the threat.

C) I'm sure they both agree. But again, they are disagreeing about WHO is the threat. And in fact, Steven is saying we should LOWER the limit, so yeah, anyone above the current limit is VERY drunk esp. in Steven's POV.

D) This is a weird AC. You and I right now prob have a lower BAL than the current limit. We pose a little danger to the public. Ok? I am sure they both would agree with his, but again, this wasn't ever mentioned.

E) No idea what both think of this. This answer choice is just a lot of jumble that makes you think of what half is of what.

Disagreement: The bees dance to communicate the location of food. Henry says no, Winifred says yes, although there may be OTHER ways to locate food such as scent trails (in other words, bees can do multiple things to accomplish critical tasks).

A) Neither mention this

B) There is more than one way of communicating where food is - Henry would say NO (Henry believes this is too complicated that they must be dancing for some OTHER reason), while Winifred would say YES.

In B, it says there is one valid explanation... Neither party ever mentions if there is more than one valid explanation.

C) Henry would say NO (Henry believes this is too complicated that they must be dancing for some OTHER reason), while Winifred would infer a YES- they may dance to get food as this is critical task.

D) Only species? We don't know that. Never mentioned.

E) Plays a role? Sure, but not the point of disagreement.

Difference: We tailor to children's accustomed style of learning vs having the children be flexible.

Dana: Tailor to the children's accustomed style of learning.

Pat: Flexibility is important and invaluable

A) Neither contemplate this topic.

B) Dana flat out disagrees with this because she thinks that WE should tailor to children's needs while Plat agrees that children should be flexible and adapt since both skills are in demand.

C) Pat could agree with this, in addition to Dana.

D) No, neither mention this.

E) Dana would say yes, but Pat would MAYBE (?) agree with this. You have to be cautious of the word SOMETIMES in E). pat says it's not always the case that we should tailor to the children's accustomed style of learning because children should also be flexible... and perhaps Pat also thinks there are times appropriate to tailor? She never mentions this, so we can't say Pat disagrees with this statement.

Difference: where does the linkage of ocean and eccentricity come from?

Tina: Euro Renaissance

Sergio: Not Euro Renaissance since the ocean has always been seen as mysterious and unpredictable, both of which are associated with eccentricity.

A) Sergio never mentions the Euro Renaissance. And Tina doesn't talk about eccentric humans during the Euro Renaissance

B) What Sergio says. Tina could agree with this? We don't know.

C) This is flipped of what Tina says. Tina says the Euro Renaissance explains the linkage. Sergio doesn't every talk about the Euro Renaissance.

D) Both don't really talk about the same qualities. Sergio talks about associations, but not the same qualities in the matter that oceans are deep, and eccentrics are deep too.

E) Tina doesn't think this. She explains that the Euro Renaissance caused the linkage in literary and artistic imagination. Sergio explains that the ocean's associations has always been to explain that linkage.

Franklin thinks the pay between the sports player and nobel prize is incosistent.

Tomeka gives reason for the pay of the sports player.

A) Taken more seriously? We have no idea, never mentioned. It's about money.

B) Paid more? Okay we are close with the money talk, but paid MORE? That was nver mentioned. Who knows, maybe Franklin wants the SAME pay.

C) Rare talents and Work Hard is not mentioned by Tomeka and this isn't mentioned by Franklin in that way either.

D) Yes! Franklin says there is no rational basis (inconsistent) while Tomeka tries to rationalize the pay.

E) Social contributions? So random, might as well say something random like the amount of time they spend time studying the LSAT.

Understanding the stimulus to see the disagreement:

Jean: Let's add the low cost model. That way, we can have high end market and low end market = overall increase in sales, while continuing to dominate the high end market.

Tracy: If we were to combine both markets (high and low), then we would allow our competitor to be at an equal footing with us in the high end market (in other words, would we still dominate the high end market? Probably not, it's possible that the high end market could go down), thus potentially hurting our overall sales (esp. since their high end market sells very expensive products).

Disagreement:

1) dominating the high end market

2) effect on overall sales (obvious disagreement, the LSAT won't go this easy on us).

A) Greater potential? Never mentioned. Also, if anything, Jean just wants to combine the markets, and this AC sounds like the low market is just better overall so we should ditch the high end market.

B) Never mentioned

C) We never mentioned this. Jean wants to combine the two markets, and continue to dominate the high end market. We don't know about dominating the low market.

D) Yep!

E) We never mentioned how the decrease sale of the high end product would affect the low cost product!

Disagreement: Reasonable or unreasonable?

Pretty straight forward. But..

I was reading D) for a bit. The reason why D) is wrong is because they both never argue about people who do not benefit from certain governmental program. It baits you to think that smokers and fatty food eaters would not benefit.

This question.. the disagreement is a bit harder to extract based on the way the stimulus is set up.

Disagreement: What allows them to give good service? Efficiency or other reasons? 

Powell: Efficiency 

Freeman: Other reasons; the private companies have more options to choose from that allows them to give good service [cherry picking].

B) The REASON (efficiency or other reason [cherry picking] that the private companies use while spending less $.

The rest of the ACs are all non sense

Disagreement: does research show that no one is genetically predisposed to manic depression?

Wirth: Yes, because no gene predisposes you to it (evidence/fact), so, ANY claim that someone are genetically predisposed is false!

Chang: No, set of genes can makes you predisposed. He doesn't disagree with the evidence above, but disagrees with the rather stupid conclusion.

D) Chang disagrees with Wirth's conclusion. Wirth thinks that research shows that no one is predisposed (supported by the fact that there is no one "gene" that exists to predispose such condition). Chang disagrees with this, because research has shown a set of genes can predispose manic-depression.

A) Wirth never mentioned a set of genes, and Chang would def disagree with this bc a set of genes have indeed been proven to predispose manic depression.

B) They never mentioned the likelihood of finding a single gene.

C) Yes, they both agree about this, not a point of disagreement.

E) Thoroughness? Never mentioned.

Disagreement: Using the funds the way the Rodrigues family intended to?

A) Lessens the suffering? Hospital auditor never mentions it. Clinic admin only says that there is less suffering but doesn't compare to the elimination of such suffering.

B) Not about adequate treatment. Never mentioned.

C) Clearly stipulated? Well the clinic admin never mentions this, so I immediately eliminated. Hospital auditor mentions that it was stipulated, but only to that extent.

D) Yes, exactly that. For some reason, taking out the word "strictly" in D made it clear for me.

E) Neither never mention Rodriguez family and their anticipations

Disagreement:

Forcing someone to volunteer... can it lead to a genuine habit of volunteering?

A) This is a trap AC. Sarah agrees with this AC, but Paul never mentioned that there are incidences where FORCED volunteering were actually genuine. Paul says that FORCED volunteering may be enjoyable that it encourages a HABIT of volunteering.. He doesn't just say that there are incidences where those forced volunteers are enjoyed.

B) Sarah never mentions enjoyment

C) Yes, Sarah says there's no way that such policy that forces students to volunteer can foster a habit vs. Paul says it can because some enjoy it and can foster a habit.

D) Paul would say yes, but Sarah never mentioned whether or not a school can develop a policy. Who knows, she might think that policy doesn't work, but another policy is possible. No idea, she never mentioned it.

E) Neither talk about the future of their lives and volunteering.

Disagreement: Such injustice places everyone at equal risk

A) Never mentioned, but also given that they are part of the same social fabric because they co-exist together.

B) Least tolerant? Never mentioned.

C) They both agree to that

D) Not disagreement. Walter says it is the privileged that should be responsible but Larissa doesn't disagree with that either- she suggests that everyone should be responsible bc of the social unrest it may bring.

E) Walter thinks they could be equally exposed so they better watch out, while Larissa thinks that they won't be as exposed because they protect themselves (e.g. idk, imagine like having a huge mansion that is barricaded from people performing injustices).