I am confused. I did not pick d because being liable does not necessarily mean you have to pay so how does this principle justify the argument?

@kiimhyerin Yes. after an employee has been at a company for 10 years, there is not much more they can obtain via training via their assignments, as there is not much they have not done. Thus, the benefit the question stem is advising their employees obtain that makes up for the "much lower" lack in pay really does not, as it never occurs, or may rarely occur

@ja4718b761 changs statement says he does not dispute their evidence but takes issue with wirths conclusion, that is not worths conclusion

just want to put out there, c is not the correct answer choice because it does not get rid of the possibility that cancer is even more prominent in countries with a high average fat intake than in countries with a low average, so it doesn't weaken, it basically does nothing

I'm confused on this question and the explanations make it worse I feel like.

I picked B for this question. the reasoning for why this is wrong lists that "just because it was minted does not mean it was in circulation, it could have been in circulation later"

then the explanation for the right answer, e, says "even if it was not in circulation, it could have been heard of"

like what lol. How does that discredit B being the right answer? b could have been heard of as well lol then by that logic

this question makes no sense to me. #help.

I chose answer choice b, because in my perspective, this answer choice could be read as - crows that perceive an individual as threatening never respond by shrieking and dive-bombing- does this not hurt the argument?

Looking at it this way, then how do we know crows are even capable of recognizing threatening people, nevertheless being able to pass this concern on to other crows since with this answer choice and the information in the question stem, it seems this reaction has nothing to do with recognizing threatening behavior.

@DavidCutie I understand this perspective, but I am still confused because answer choice b does not say that Varela is "disagreeing" with the principle, just that she is disputing it. Disputing by definition means "to argue against" which is what she does, she is arguing against the validity of a principle pulford explicitly states. when you argue against something, it does not mean you disagree, disagree by definition is "to have a different opinion" which is not what answer choice b is saying. would you mind explaining a bit more?

you could say based on the principle, Varela is disputing the validity by saying, actually... curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry so you need that too. Which I agree, does not mean she is disagreeing, but disputing is not the same as disagreeing

I picked c for this one. My reasoning is that the question stem already states that "more turmeric is consumed per capita in India than the rest of the world" and introduces a new fact about Alzheimers disease, that there is an age more prone to having this disease. If India has less of these age prone people, and it has been established they already have more tumeric consumption, then turmeric probably does help prevent Alzheimers disease as it allows the people who are the age most prone to the disease to be less than the rest of the world. is this wrong thinking?

E does not make sense to me because the question stem does not indicate it is talking about people with Alzheimers disease, only people likely to be diagnosed with it??

#help. I ruled out A because I thought that forced us to assume the costs of ostriches and cows and bulls. Like how do we know the price of one costs more than the other? just because it says the start up costs for ostrich farming are greater does not mean the animals cost more. what about food? What about tools? Like what, that's forcing us to assume something it does not state or even indicate.

I would do LSAC, just because that platform mimics exactly what it will look like when you take the test. If you are taking it at home, I would just recommend to ensure you are in the best location where the wifi connection is consistent. At a testing center, I think technical difficulties are harder to come by, only difficulties will occur that are out of your control and so there is not much you can do about it. Good luck on your test!

@jir I would say we can conclude the debate is "ongoing" because the passage introduces a debate to us, but there is never an established right or wrong answer at the end of the passage, so as far as we are aware of based on the information we have on the topic, its ongoing

@PranjalChaudhary I would say no, because the purpose of the passage is not to bring a spotlight to that topic, it's to hold a debate over it. Thinking of this as a spotlight passage might warp your perspective on the passage and cause you to miss questions