Anyone who is in connecticut want to study together?
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I hate these questions with a burning passion
The argument assumes that because you believe that people act only in their own self interest, government consent is not possible, so therefore you MUST believe that government consent is not possible. The flaw in this argument is that just because you believe 1 thing, doesn't immediately mean you also must beleive everything that this 1 thing implies. therefore, A is right.
I need to read slower and more carefully,
I did the same in the beginning, but eventually I read B more carefully and figured it out. I think reading comprehension is super important for questions like this, especially when reading fast
If you refresh the page it will show up
It's the contra positive of the stimulus. The stim says that in order to act responsibly, you must act on the basis of the info. Tori did not properly investigate the company, therefore she didn't act responsibly
I was struggling for a while, but I think I've got it now. So the argument of the stimulus is that if you increase the quality of food, methane emissions will be lowered. Since it's a strengthen question look for an answer choice that potentially eliminates a weakness in the argument. Choices b through e all address points that are not relevant to the conclusion. A seems like it isn't relevant first, until you read the stimulus more carefully, and realize that the demand for meat and milk is growing in addition to the population of cows. So even if better quality food reduces the emissions per cow, if the population of cows also grows significantly, emissions will still rise as a result of the higher demand for milk and meat. but if better quality food also allows cows to produce more milk and meat, then the population wouldn't need to grow as much to accomodate the greater demand, which will consequently make it more likely that the emissions will be reduced. It's tricky because you have to follow the logic chain, and it doesn't make sense at first glance.
hope this helps
The problem with A is that it is just a restatement of the facts. we are already given in the stimulus that smaller families have more allergies than large families, but A doesn't do anything to strengthen the hypothesis, we don't know if it's more true or less true based on this. E is correct because the argument in the stimulus states that large families develop less allergies because of more germs, and we know children going to daycare will be exposed to those same germs/ will be in an environment similar to large families. Therefore, E increases the likelihood that more exposure to germs is the reason why kids develop less allergies in large families.
In the stimulus it says "property rights are of the utmost importance to this CITY COUNCIL", and you always take what the stimulus says at face value. You have to make way too many leaps in logic/assumptions to interpret the stimulus as telling you that property owners value their property more than the city council. In general, any answer choice that negates/goes against information given in the stimulus won't be true
I fell for the oldest trick in the book, I'm so cooked chat
How come for question 1, "during the winter months" isn't a modifier, and the a vs B isn't now vs previously?
It states that toms recipe "Is easy for most people", but it says nothing about his recipe relative to other recipes. Therefore he could theoretically have like a mac and cheese recipe or something that is objectively pretty easy, but it's possible that this recipe would still be harder than every conceivable recipe that exists, like a sandwhich or something.
Can Someone give a better explanation for why B is wrong?