I initially could not distinguish between B and C, because they both deal with the sample-population issue.
However, C tells us that samples are not representative of the population. [because participants with good results are overrepresented in the sample.]
B tells us that samples are not equally numerous.
Very important distinction. We don't care about 'numerous' because proportions control for different sample sizes.
Oh, I have an interesting way to think about this, in case it's helpful to anyone.
V ^ F > C [some correlation between Comedic acts and Failing to live up to Valuable ideals]
R > V [some correlation between Respect and high esteemed Value]
??? [missing premise]
-----------------------
C
We need F to trigger V ^ F, i.e., we need to know that people fail to live up to standards they value.
This took a lot of organizing and translation!
Wowwwww, I came back to this explanation 3 months after, to give it a second chance, and NOW I GET IT. Sometimes, letting a question sit for a while helps!!!
This is what clicked for me, in case it's helpful to anyone:
What's important of answer choice D is the "more prone to injuries" part. It may be helpful to re-write this answer choice in dif ways, but meeting the same function, so let's do it:
Original answer choice: "The more prone a jogger is to jogging injuries, the more likely he or she is to develop the habit of performing stretches before jogging."
Easier, more intuitive versions of it:
"the first group is more prone to injuries." [that would do it, right?]
"the second group is amateur and therefore their training is less intense or less competitive"
"the first group are all 65 years old or older."
"the second group trains in a safer environment", etc.
the important thing is that individuals from the first group all suffer more injuries to begin with.
I'm going through the core curriculum and I got most of the drills from the W/S/E module wrong. it's crazy.
I feel very comfortable with the theory and strategy for this question type but when it comes to drilling, I miss so many of them! What is happening?
Something I struggled with when answering this question was not knowing whether the main point revolved around CEOs or corporations... I really could not make my mind! What queues tell you that the passage deals with 'CEOs' over 'corporations'? (while under time pressure obviously) #help
Why do I love answer choice C so much?
Note to self: you cannot rely on the rules of conditionals when there aren’t any!!!!
This person's explanations are very bad compared to the person doing the most recent explanations. #feedback
I guess what confused me here is that I took the premise "Even an adm that fails to protect environment may still be an overall success" to be a restatement of the first premise, or a principle premise, while in fact it was a fact premise. In other words, I thought that protecting individual liberties can now be sufficient on its own to trigger overall success.
Can someone please explain me how am I supposed to do all of this in 1.5 minute?
Built drill using the easy mode and thought all of the questions were hell itself. Got 4/5 right but went over the time limit. 😭 😢
But option C does not engage with the argument. It just brings up a new point. We are taught consistently across the CC to not fall for answer that disregard the premises. In this case, the nitrogen is an important part of the argument, and C does not engage with nitrogen , it just brings a whole different point. D engages with the argument. #help
If you negate B, the whole argument falls apart though
Many thanks to Professor Omar, from my geology 101.
I somehow understood the passage perfectly and yet managed to get -3 in it
I don't see how E is wrong 😭. It seems to me that all social sciences require persuasive writing...? Also, author doesn't say that historians tend to be propagandists. He just rejects propaganda. Thus, I don't see the "may tend" part. #help
thank you in advance for responding!
#help
I interpreted the stimulus in the following way:
R => P
? (R)
-----------
P
(R= "could have reasonably expected..."
P= "should pay for damage")
This is why I chose D. The stimulus says "if he could have reasonable expected... then he should pay for damage," but nowhere is said that he could have reasonable expected.... Thus, whithout that piece of information the argument has a gap, which D fulfills. A does nothing but restate what the stimulus already says.
But doesn't 11E negate the premise? (which is bad way to weaken an argument)
Is 'independent of original function' necessary or sufficient for sophisticated music? if it's sufficient, then D could be compatible.
Ind → S
the only incompatible statement from a conditional relationship is the case in which we have 'Ind' and not 'S'.
Having 'S' and not 'Ind' would not be incompatible.
If it's necessary, it may be incompatible but the stimulus does not make clear whether 'independent of function' is necessary for sophisticated.
The explanation does not make reference to this. I would appreciate any #help
Thanks a lot!
Is this method better (faster and more effective) than diagramming with the circles (Venn diagrams)?? I use diagrams but I am willing to switch over to this approach if it is faster.
I don't think answer choice 18B is given enough consideration. There is a negative characterization of cultural borrowing in lines 35-40. Advocates of pan-indianism say that cultural borrowing results in assimilation and loss of original culture. This is pretty negative. The author states that this is unsupported, and he opposes this view across the passage, including the intro.
also, the word 'skeptical' used in answer choice E is way too soft.
I appreciate any #help
Thanks!
Mmm... I wish question 13 was explained more in depth. I don't see how 'origins of a situation are examined'. What situation? nonpoetic emphasis? what are the origins? if it said chronology, i would go for it. But origins suggest going back to moment 1, the birth of something. The passage shows the intellectual emphasis of a movement, but not its origins. #help
Something the explanation forgets to mention but I believe is key is the fact that government testing statedly regulates drugs being 'put onto the market'. Yet the public concerns arise from chemicals being dumped, not sold commercially. Thus, drugs could still pass the test and nonetheless be harmful when spilled on water sources.