@embino I don’t really think that Terry’s response is a recommendation. He isn’t saying we should do something. It’s more like he’s offering a 3rd option Jordan didn’t consider
This was my logic
Jordan assumes there are only 2 methods. Either a business makes efforts to help the environment and lose money or they harm the environment. Jordan offers options A and B
Terry says there’s a 3rd alternative where no one loses money if everyone works together. Terry offers option C
AC A is right because it shows that there’s a 3rd alternative where the garden party can happen and the grass can be watered. Jordan is saying A and B, Terry is saying C
AC C is wrong because it’s saying there’s a 3rd alternative where no action is being taken, but Terry explicitly believes that this alternative must be an action, not an inaction. It’s kind of like parallel reasoning. In AC C, Jordan is saying A and B can happen, but Terry is saying /A and /B yields a new result.
E is a very weak AC that doesn't say anything new whereas C shows that there are only 2 entities that are doing the research and thus gov't do it more
@baybunny408 Third? I thought this was only the second haha
Why wouldn't it be useful for lake sticklebacks? Just because insects prey on them more doesn't mean large predators aren't significant. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that their bigger size may be good against other predators. Their larger size could be for the "less often" predators
Also, what is "most often" and "less often" anyways? If you interpret it as >50% and =<50%, the number of large predators preying on them is still enough to warrant a larger size
The author is concluding that larger size helps lake sticklebacks against predators more than armor.
We're looking to weaken that, so we want an answer that shows their conclusion is wrong. Probably something along the lines of how armor is actually > than size or that size is used for something other than to defend against predators
B: Explains an alternative to why sticklebacks are large. They need to be big to survive winter, not to survive against predators so the author's conclusion is wrong
C: A few reasons why it's wrong and you can pick the one that resonates with you best
We can't conclude that the difference in predators means that larger size makes them better equipped to handle insects. Anything more is speculation. Answer is neutral
This explanation, at best, shows why armor is unnecessary but not why a large size is necessary/better against the predators. Answer is neutral
Bigger size would actually mean that insects are going to have a bigger time preying on them, so this would strengthen if you interpret it like this
@Hello available only for the drills section of analytics
If you have time then diagram. If not then these are tricks I use
Similar language in the premise and conclusion. If the conclusion says some, the parallel answer should have the word some or equivalent of some. I can cross off anything that says none, all, most
Nots. If the premise or conclusion has the phrase “not x” then the parallel answer must always have a negation of some sort
Common trap answers share the same topics. If the stimulus is about baking and there’s an answer choice about baking, it’s probably wrong
Facts vs values. If the stimulus says anything about beliefs or should/should not, the parallel answer will too
C was one of the first ones I crossed out because the stimulus says that there's an antitheft device with a homing beacon and C makes these assumptions which aren't given
Antitheft device and a homing beacon were developed seperately
They were also implemented one before the other
It also didn't make sense to me how a few arrests could make theft rates drop dramatically. Like disproportionately so
A is wrong because "group's interests should be directly proportional to the number of voters in that group." But children aren't voters and thus aren't included in that group and that's not what the author is argument
@pdiddywithfur If you negated and personality differences CAN be explained by cultural differences, it means that horoscopes do not determine out personalities and thus actually strengthens the argument
@cjbecke4 The conclusion is "taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking."
C undermines because for every city that smokes less, nearby cities smoke more
Big words are traps. Just understand the concept like there's a disease and it does x, y, z, and the author thinks x, y, and z about it
I interpreted C as their appliances are already energy efficient so using electricity meters (which doesn't change the energy efficiency, it just makes tenants pay) wouldn't make a difference. Basically, landlords are adding electricity meters on top of their already efficient appliances.
Like LED lights are so good already. Even if you cut your lights off by 5 hours in a month, your bill won't change. In fact, maybe the act of turning lights on/off uses more energy than letting them run nonstop
So just because there are meters doesn't GUARANTEE that energy will be conserved
There's a reason they didn't refer to the entire sentence. Half of the sentence is support and the other is the sub conclusion.
Gonna be real, that sentence made no fucking sense to me and even after BR that makes no sense and you know what? We roll with it and work with what little we have
"Intentionally commodified" - so "intentionally" is an interesting word here because it means it has to be done with intent, not as a byproduct or indirect effect.
A: Tempting, but wrong for a few reasons:
Passage B doesn't talk about trading real ITEMS for virtual items. It mentions trading real money briefly, but money =/= items
Passage B exclusively talks about in game (or in world) trading and currency
B: Avatars? Does that mean account trading? Or trading a virtual item? Or character? I dunno. It's too vague and niche and whether avatars can be traded or not doesn't explain if it's INTENTIONALLY commodified.
C: Unrelated. This is a passage A reference anyways.
D: Stated in the very first paragraph of B. Players who own IP rights are also encouraged real world trade in virtual games (double negative of paragraph 1). IP are also "encouraged" so that coincides with our concept of "intentional"
A good way to visualize this is Roblox lmao. When you create a new item, you're given IP rights to it and you can sell this "item" or "right" to other players. You get currency which you can then cash out for real money or not. Regardless, Roblox actively encourages this by giving you IP rights
E: We don't care about cross-trading. We care about whether items and currency obtained within a singular game should be taxable. In this case, the author wouldn't have an opinion about this because it's not mentioned at all
Conclusion introduces responsibility as a new topic so we should anticipate the AC to have responsibility. Only A, B, and D reflect this, but I'll go over each.
A: Correct. Shows that the CondR is linked to responsibility and when negated, it destroys the argument
B: "Unforeseen" is not something applicable to this argument. We don't know if its unforeseen or not. Also the negated version of "government is responsible for none of the unforeseen" falls under the same issue
C: Doesn't relate to conclusion & negated version of "demand for gas CAN increase without causing g. prices to increase" doesn't destroy argument
D: "Excessively" is not something that's known. Same issue as B
E: A lot of reasons why it's wrong.
Is this government in the stimulus pursuing policies that don't increase demand for fuel? Dunno
AC shows the relationship between demand for fuel and gas prices, which doesn't establish the conclusion's concept of responsibility
How often do analytics update? I did around 40 questions in the past 24 hours but no change in my analytics -- this includes no changes in the percentage and the questions taken. But when I check my drill history, the questions are there. Do analytics update at a specific time daily? Can you change it so that it update in real time?
I also noticed that the ones not included tend to be my 1-3 question drills. 10+ questions at a time update normally.
D is wrong for any of the given reasons:
We care only about high blood pressure conditions, not conditions as a whole
Stimulus talks about things caused by stress, not things treatable through stress reduction
C and B swap the logic. Stimulus says if you can praise / dismiss then you understand art and if you DONT understand art then you CAN NOT pass judgement
A is wrong because of the word "interest." Whether they have in interest in something in independent of the fact of whether they should/shouldn't do something
Kind of proud I got this one right
Stimulus: There's generators that convert heat into electricity. Making steel produces a lot of excess heat. If they were able to put that heat into the generator, they'd save a lot on their electric bills and therefore save money.
A: Wrong because we don't care about other means of using heat. Just because another method is more efficient doesn't mean this one isn't effective.
B: Wrong because we don't care if it's possible or not under current technology. Stimulus says "if steel-manufacturing plants could feed..." Alternatively, the negated version of this means it's impossible now but not impossible in the future.
C: Negated means that installing them costs more than the amount saved so in the long run they'd still lose money. Therefore, this is necessary
D: Wrong because PRIMARY source of energy in the PROCESS. 2 reasons it's wrong. (1) It doesn't HAVE to be the PRIMARY reason and (2) steel-manufacturing process doesn't HAVE to use electricity (maybe it's manpowered or nuclear powered idk)
E: "Only if" yeah get outta here.
Lots of big words in the stimulus, but it's not that complex. Make your life simple
Professor believes that a large meteorite was the reason for mass extinction. However, the crystalized rocks show normal magnetic polarity rather than reverse polarity presenting during the mass extinction era.
A) Correct. Weakens the argument and is thus not necessary because author (not the professor!) argues that mass extinction was not caused by the meteor. Negate this and it strengthens the argument.
B) Required because it means the magnetic polarity observed is correct
C) Required because it eliminates alternative reasons (something else made the rocks melt after impact)
D) Required because it eliminates alternative reasons (something else made the rocks melt, same as C)
E) Required because it eliminates an alternative theory that the meteor crashed and reformed before mass extinction happened or even the meteor crashing had nothing to do with extinction
@AnyaWahal Stimulus flaw is
Most successful products were launched using TV ads
We are using a TV ad
CONCLUSION: New product will probably be successful
Or in other words
A > B
B
Therefore A > B
FLAW: Sufficient/necessary
E is saying that based on previous trends, the new book will be profitable. The general logic here is Peninsula > profitable. It needed to say instead
"The novel Safekeeping is probably published by Peninsula because it's profitable and almost every novel published by Peninsula over the last ten years has been profitable."
I’m going to assume this is a N.A. question
Stimulus says:
Historic figures that are most engaging > rarely morally virtuous
HF > brave and confident
People we want to live as > characteristics we admire
CONCLUSION: Moral virtue is not something we value most
If B were true, it doesn’t trigger anything. So what if they’re either brave and confident but not morally virtuous? The phrase “more difficult” is also a red flag becuase more difficult is in that grey area that neither guarantees nor discounts the relationship between the two. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it isn’t possible
AC A creates a link between engaging HF > people we want to live as. If you negate it, the argument also falls apart
@MMAceAttorney177 what coin is bigger than a kitchen implement?