I can't discuss the test material, but I do have a huge complaint about the flex. The proctor kept interrupting me during the test on every section because they couldn't see the paper I was writing on. It was absolutely ridiculous. They took up atleast 3-5 minutes on every section telling me to be in the camera. I was right infront of the computer but i guess when i put my head down to write they couldn't see what I was writing. These things were not notified to me and they didn't warn me about these possible interruptions. So, i was really disorientated when they proctor started talking during the test. 3-5 mins was only the actual time they took up, but by continuously interrupting, they kept breaking my concentration. It was absolutely ridiculous. I wanna add that I'm not a low scorer, im in the 170+ range. For future flex takers, firmly tell your proctor to SHUT THE FUCK UP before you take the test. Literally wasted a year of studying for the June test only to be sabotaged by the proctor in India. Excuse my language but you would understand if you were in my shoes.
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
E is not a flaw in the argument. Look at it this way.
Galindo's conclusion:
A background is no guarantee of success = Success →/background (Simply put, background doesn't necessarily lead to success)
How is this supported in the argument?
He gives one instance where a person with background didn't lead to success.
Background →/Success
Contrapositive:
Success →/background
This is totally valid within Galindo's argument.
The problem lies where Galindo uses this argument to refute Fremont's argument -- Viable Candidate → Background
Taken together, Galindo's argument is valid within his argument, but he can't refute Fremont's argument because Fremont never said Background is a sufficient condition. Fremont simply says if you want to be considered as a viable candidate, the minimum requirement is that you have some background. However, Galido refutes this argument by saying since background doesn't lead to success, you don't need to have background to be considered a viable candidate. See where the flaw is?
I wish they made this feature too
is the test an advance in medicine tho? wouldn't it be technology? it clearly says that medicine didn't advance. This was a horrible question.
I scored a low 150s on my diagnostic and I'm working my way up to mid-high 160s now. I would definitely like to study with you. We could share our study tips and discuss some PTs.
How does A support the hypothesis?
How does a neighbor having seen the back door closing help identify whether it was the cat or the children?
#help (Added by Admin)
prepare for three years of physical assaults by homeless people, and sometimes murder.
Thank you!