It was difficult for me to interpret what association with something else means. "Association" sounds so weak that it could've been indicating correlation... any tips or explanations will be appreciated :)
one loophole that i thought about while reading this was what if Arrian's views are so similar to Epicetetus that the two views are indistinguishable?
the way i though about this is that one flaw is correlation≠causation. Then I thought, even if correlation was causation and vitamin C prevented getting a cold, that doesn't mean that taking vitamin C is the only thing needed to prevent a cold.
It could also be true that taking vitamin C AND keeping warm prevents getting a cold for example.
I was slowed down in this question because I didn't recognize that "we" is "people".
at first I thought, isn't inferring that someone believes something because it is implied by one of their beliefs a fallacy?
then I saw that all the ACs start with "some doctors believe".
thinking about it now, it's the "for this reason" that makes a different.
The stimulus implied that it's for the reason of Vit C producing collagen that doctors believe that it can be useful in treating common illnesses.
I think another thing is that it's reasonable to assume that doctors, being specialized in this topic, would actually infer AC A.
Any thoughts?
for 9E, what confused me what the use of the plural word "difficulties" rather than the singular word "difficulty" or "one of the difficulties". What the author is doing with talking about that one critic is illustrate the difficulty of telling a forgery apart from the original. that's just one difficulty. why is the correct AC using a plural word?
where I'm having trouble with question 25 is that for D, it says "some new psychological considerations"... whereas the passage only talks about one new psychological consideration? risk taking is more likely when faced with sure loss... can someone explain?
for Q1, I interpreted "seize" as the land has already been taken. not that there's been an attack and the attack may fail or succeed... Why is seize interpreted in the latter manner here?
Here are the flaws that I found in this question:
-Averages flaw (explained by JY)
-"according to some astronomers" Just because some astronomers say this doesn't mean it's absolutely true
-Just because something has happened in the past in a certain pattern doesn't mean that it will also happen the same way in the future. Specially with chance events and we don't know if the meteorites were chances events or not.
I don't understand how the flaw could've been necessity/ sufficiency confusion...
even if AT->HP, it doesn't follow that not (HP -> HTE).
can someone please explain this?
#help
D confused me because I thought "emotive states" is different from disposition or the state of someone's psychology. To me, "emotive states" is more external. it is expressed by the individual...? Whereas psychology of someone or their disposition is internal. A person may be internally feeling one thing but expressing another thing.
Can someone please clarify??
#helpppp
I chose D at first because I thought well maybe dioxin doesn't cause the problem through the hormonal change. Maybe it causes the physiological effects which is what is really causing the reproductive abnormalities. This would make it possible that the fish still have the reproductive abnormalities with dioxin present...
Well D specifically says that the physiological changes are induced by the changes in hormone concentrations. so it can't be that one is happening without the other. if dioxin is the cause and is present in the environment, it has to be that the hormonal changes and thus physiological changes are both happening.
Maybe D would make sense as a weakening AC if it said that Dioxin causes reproductive abnormalities through a short lived change in hormonal changes and long(er) term physiological changes. Then it would make sense that when dioxin is present and hormonal changes aren't, dioxin is still the cause.
But those are unwarranted assumptions. we cannot make them.
I eliminated A because the generalization doesn't include ALL instances. The generalization says that sometimes it's morally right to obstruct the police and the example given is of that instance. Thus, that's not an error.
for some reason, I got stuck between the "and" statements and "or" statements. the stim is an "and" statement but the right AC is an "either or"... can someone clarify please?
I don't understand why A is incorrect. our premise covers information about demand and the conclusion is about salability in general. The argument doesn't take into account that salability can be influenced by other factors...
is A incorrect because it's too strong and the conclusion, using the word "generally", leaves room for other , perhaps minor, influences?
one thing that i used to eliminate C for Q24 was that "a few days late" doesn't have any support. The passage specifically says that the ones with "outstanding bills" will have their water shut off. I'd say that it's a reasonable inference that outstanding bills do not pile up over a few days specially that the author mentioned at the beginning of the passage that some haven't paid their bills in decades.
heyyy I'm from vancouver downtown area. I'm currently in my drilling stage as I've finished foundations but I'm down to study together in the way of keeping each other accountable and sharing challenging questions
for 15, i know that the second explanation is more plausible in comparison to the person but logically, it doesn't make it likely?
For question 10 I chose the right answer reluctantly and based on POE because to me "stemming" felt like to start something. Therefore, I mistakenly thought that UNISCO could play an important role in starting abuse....? makes no sense.
So I looked into it and I had the very "to stem" confused with "to stem from".
True "to stem from" means to arise from.
However, "to stem" on it's own means to dampen or reduce like reducing the flow of a river.
Hope this helps!
what threw me off about C was that we don't know how much of fish oil is available in the fish itself. it could be that fish also contain little fish oil but because fish oil is strong, ingesting just a little enables us to reap its effects. basically, C would require us to make the assumption that fish have more fish oil than the fillets...
what confused me about D was that it says that "an event that is taken to be likely".
However, the stim doesn't say that it's likely that we'll be alive during this time. it says that it is expected. that the vast majority of humans ever to live would be alive.
where am I going wrong here? Is this a case of the correct AC not being the ideal one but the best one?
Why does JY say that it is a charitable interpretation to take "more expensive" as the "distinction" mentioned in AC C & E? To me it seems reasonable. it is what makes the new ship different/ distinct from the old one.
ps. not saying that C & E are right ACs. just confused about why this interpretation is considered "charitable" while it seems reasonable.
irrelevant but who is a singletary? what does this mean?
for question 16, How is the answer (A) unusual expressiveness ?
I get that it's the best answer out of all of them but what's "unusual" about the era in question? how would we justify this?
Admin Note: Edited title. For RC questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus."
how can we conclude that the museum is losing money when we are told that the income is not exceeding the spending? it could be the case that the income is the same amount as the spendings and the museum is not losing or making money.