i am a little thrown off by the absurd part? it's absurd because the contrapositive doesn't make sense? It is absurd that all X → Y because /Y→/X. Is this even an argument?
how does line 16 "anticipated not just subsequent development in the arts" = anticipate later artists for question 6? isn't that an assumption we are not allowed to make?? i guess when compared to other answers it's clearly better but it's still one of those "iffy" answers to me.
question 11 was a real trip. 1) so its potentially compatible to incorporate and favor Western notions of standard language writing depending on the community's needs but it's a big no-no to incorporate some words from the majority culture (I assume Western culture) in the case of making a traditional language easier to teach.
2) I understand that some aspects of the majority culture have served as barriers but if majority words can help to actually dismantle such barriers by allowing it easier to teach then how is it so incompatible?
usually rc is my strongest but i got every single question on this passage wrong. jesus
Is this a reasonable similar argument?
Not all cars are fantastic but some are and make great sounds. A great car sound depends on many things; however, these things are subjective. Thus, there is no objective way of determining a great car.
what the hell!?! I thought psychologists were a subset of doctors!!!
i always thought regardless of intent, if you don't tell the truth, you are lying. i guess that's over analyzing
I avoided A because I thought deceptive was too strong of a word to characterize the guy's research, as if he were trying to purposefully mislead
It was really to difficult for me to distinguish endosymbiosis as either a necessary or sufficient condition for plant formation. The way I saw it, If you take the contrapositive of the last statement, you get
single →remains of an engulfed organism (endosymbiosis)
but E says remains (endosymbiosis) → chlorachniophytes.
Here's what's wrong with D. Let's say there was a study done that says:
Research shows cigarette smoking increases your risk for lung cancer. Why? Because those who tend to smoke generally have a higher rate of lung cancer.
Picking answer choice D is like saying "Hey my two uncles who chainsmoke everyday and have been smoking all their lives are healthy and don't have lung cancer so you are wrong!". Well, yeah sure. I don't doubt you but your uncles are probably an exception. Maybe they exercise, have great genes, eat right, etc. Maybe some really does imply a lot of people. But how do you know? You don't.
Picking B is not necessarily a "classification error" but I think more like skewing the data. Yeah one can lose records and still be accurate, maybe even 100% accurate! But on the other hand, one can lose records and be 100% wrong! If B were really true, it would really hurt the data.
thanks guys.
are we assuming then the dioxin is released into the water only once a day? i mean what difference does how far dioxin travels downstream make if the factory continually pumps out dioxin in which then the fish are constantly exposed to dioxin?
I am having a hard time whether I should follow the schedule. I assume (uh oh) that to be able to strengthen or weaken an answer, you must first be able to see a flaw with the argument. That is why I see it makes more sense to work on the flaw before strengthen/weaken. However, I am sure there is a reason why the syllabus is set up as is but I can't figure out why.
I chose C but realize C is more of a part-to-part instead of whole to part. If C said Lawson Automobile Company is the best automobile company instead of it makes the best race cars, it would have been correct.