is there a way to find a question (PT # and all) by using a word from the stimulus as the search word?
For example, if i recall there was a tricky question about monkeys that i had attempted a while ago, but i don't remember the PT # and stuff, can I search for the question from the search function?
i chose B because the last sentence said "the [european] music ultimately depends on nothing but itself"
this could imply that the reasons for the significance of European music, could be all due to "musical" factors, and not due to military or economic factors.
we're told of one musical reason in the beginning of the stimulus ==> how the original function became an aspect of style, how the music could stand independent.
honestly,who wrote this question smh
how come these ACs do not mention the domain at all?
do we know whether Bran flakes and Lasagna are foods that ordinarily contain no fat?
why are we applying the rules of a domain, when we're not told whether the ACs have foods inside the domain...
this is the hardest style of passage for me. I just got a whacky one (level 4) on a drill and got aaaalll the questions wrong. so now i'm back here to revise my foundations. wish me luck
why is it that under notable assumptions for this question's explanation worded this way?
"The author assumes that the students’ chess-playing causally contributed to their improved schoolwork achievement. The author also assumes a particular causal mechanism — that it was the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised by chess that improved the children’s schoolwork achievement."
its not an also assumption. its the same assumption!
the author assumes a causal chain of events.
>played chess --> improved brain power -->
improve achievements
>played chess -->improve achievements
shouldn't the author also assume that important issues are actually being discussed on the internet?
his premises state "a person with internet CAN discuss important issues" and then concludes "internet users MUST be given freedom of expression"
so he's assuming something definite from a premise that's probably happening.
honestly same here. maybe try doing the harder passage first in a section. usually the hard passages are passages 4, sometimes passage 2 in a section. some people also just tackle the passage with most number of questions first.
maybe then you wont feel too fatigued when its time for complex passage?
if you're the type of test taker that spends more time reading the passage then really, you only have 30s or less per question.
if you're not that type and is okay skimming through the passage and covering it in under 3 minutes, then you get more time.
at this point, i'd suggest finding out what your preferred way of test taking the RC section is!
how are we simply assuming here that the non-sale Styron hammer was not at the entrance as its usual place? we are only told that Styron retained their usual location. What if Styron was always at the entrance?
in this case, Styron will probably not be sold as much as Maxlast even when not on sale, according to choice (A).
but the store seems to sell about the same during usual times.
right now i don't think there is a feature that shows it explicitly like how things are under the Priorities section. However if you go to 'Questions' and play around with the filters, like by "tag" and "number of takes" and put 'number of takes as 2+" it shows you the questions you took, for a specific tag like "causal reasoning' and the 2+ times you took those questions. It shows you whether you got it wrong and right.
But if you want to keep track i think there's a way -- first you save a copy of your current view of your Priorities page, where Your accuracy is shown in percentage. And then once you feel like you're improving, go back to to priorities page and do the same thing. your accuracy percentage should have improved. You'll just be recording the time spent improving manually and not from 7sage.
B) "top priority" is not the same as "as high priority as"
we dont know whether customer satisfaction is a top priority for the CEOs. they just seem to consider both employees and customer satisfaction to be on the same level.
p - stat of top companies said 'employee happiness is same priortiy as customer happiness'
c - top companies do not behave indifferently to their employees. (others belief is false)
D) makes a conclusion set in reality, based on a claim set in belief (the CEOs beliefs)
the CEOs believe they are satisfying employee needs. But the author cannot make a claim about the reality of the employees based on these CEOs beliefs.
flaw: belief =/= reality.
Flaw has to be my favorite type of question so far! but lord knows i'm not great at it lol. not yet, anyways
unrelated but also related -
if there's someone who's good at probability, pls do explain how the probability is 18.5%? figured i would learn some probability too in between all this
sorry if this is a dumb question, but i dont understand the phrasing of the correct answer D. if anyone can help, i'd appreciate it!
so, the flaw is generalizing from a subset to a superset.
goes from saying "subset has more of small studies with dramatic findings" to "superset is more likely to have small studies with dramatic findings"
right?
my question is, why is it not an "assumes, without warrant, that there are more small studies than large studies in the superset"?
the answer choice is an "overlooks the possibility there's more small studies than large studies in the superset"
i feel like rolanda can be blamed for thinking that the yard is bigger, when she knows the property lines start 20ft from the sidewalk lol. could argue she was looking at a smaller house. how else did she think the yard was bigger?
poor tom got the scolding. all he was doing was pointing out the rule.
@stitchsplanet i made a mistake. the superset is not 'water'. superset is 'conditions necessary for life'. water is a member of the superset. flaw is pointing out there would be other necessary conditions in the superset.
i understood that the flaw is "just because you have met the necessary condition, does not mean that you have the sufficient condition"
but i didn't understand how that is the same as "fails to consider there are other necessary conditions for life",
helps me to think in sets:
if you have subset life, then you have superset water.
you are in the superset water
therefore, you are in the subset life.
wrong logic.
flaw: fails to consider... there are conditions, other than water/in addition to water, that is necessary (still in superset) for you to be in the subset life.
does any one else practice rephrasing "assumes, without warrant..." that does not have a negative word in the sentence into a "fails to consider.. "?' sentence
like this one is a "fails to consider.." with no negative terms and the "assumes, without warrant.." has negative term 'will not'
unrelated but could someone pls let me know how to get to the Blind review page on these 'You try' lessons on the new 7sage site
@stitchsplanet but if i don't take the conditional statement as his premise and instead take the last sentence "economy actually got stronger this year", then yeah i cant really he was being mutually inconsistent. hmm
The reason why I chose C is because I thought the critic was ignoring his own reasoning.
Critic's conclusion is "your prediction is wrong because recession didn't happen" and his reasoning is "You said if policy not changed, recession will happen"
critic kind of just ignored the sufficient of the conditional and straight up said "the necessary condition did not happen"
i thought that's what "mutually inconsistent" means. i did not think of it as the critic contradicting himself.
@erarabiameyer C and D are literally the definitions of "minor premise" and "major premise" respectively.
if you can clearly understand what minor and major premises are, you should be able to quickly identify them as soon as you've read the stimulus. then go hunting. not POE. this of course, depends on whether you can first identify main point and any premise apart.
tell me how choice A's "dishonesty" is not the same as choice D's "Morality".. pls do tell me. cause i'm losing my sanity here.
in Kevin's explanation video, he said, we're not judging the company's morals, author is talking about the company's intention.
and then when it came to (A), suddenly, intentions became dishonest. Am I wrong in thinking "honesty counts as morals"??
I understand how D is wrong. D is pretty consistent with author's argument. Terry does not consider any other factors that could contribute to the company's avoidance. so he does think mitigating circumstances are irrelevant.
A) says if company's behavior can be explained by something else, then the company should not be called dishonest.
but Terry calls them dishonest. so he is violating this principle.