A doesn't resolve the discrepancy. It's saying that of Yeung's supporters, a smaller percentage were eligible voters compared to Panitch's supporters. So let's assume a lot of Yeung's fans are under-18 or non-citizens and can't vote for him.

But does knowing that answer the paradox: Why did Yeung win even though more of the eligible voters they polled supported Panitch?

If anything, I think it makes it even more contradictory. How could Yeung win against Panitch when 1) he was less favored in the polls; and 2) he had a smaller percentage of supporters that were eligible to vote?

The way I see it, Hector's argument for removing the sculpture rests not on whether the public is for or against it, but whether it would benefit the public. That's the only reasoning we're given:

town sculpture → benefit

/benefit → /town sculpture

But Hector concludes:

negative public opinion → /town sculpture

So there must be some kind of bridge:

negative public opinion → /benefit → /town sculpture

AC E provides this bridge by saying that public opinion of benefits is an indicator of actual benefits (or lack thereof). When negated, Hector's conclusion falls apart because we wouldn't know whether or not there was a benefit to the public. Without that, we wouldn't know whether or not the sculpture ought to be removed.

Same! In hindsight, I guess "current popularity" doesn't imply increased popularity. Comedians who display disrespect could have always been popular. In which case, the frequency of people who fail to live up to ideals does not matter (i.e., fails negation test).

I chose A and I think that was 100% influenced by listening to the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial and hearing her lawyers yell, "Objection: Hearsay" a million times.

That said, it's really unclear whether the "colleague" is alluding to Ms. Chan's continued work at Quad Cities or with a different venture/company. If the former, then that would contradict the definition of a retirement. The flow of the argument from retired --> Quad Cities --> colleague --> business trips is really misleading, so I kind of want to write this off as a poorly written stimulus...

I chose C during the timed set, but I should have realized that C and A are saying very similar things. If the flaw is that the author is taking for granted that all X are Y, then they are also overlooking the possibility that some X aren't Y. I know there are some nuances in wording (like religious music vs. organ music), but I think the general takeaway stands.

The way I see it, Yolanda's conclusion that one event is more dangerous than another is based on the premise that the other event doesn't physically harm people. By Arjun saying that other event can physically hurt people, he is disputing the strength of Yolanda's premise.

I don't see that as him failing to maintain the distinction in Yolanda's argument. In fact, he recognizes that distinction but doesn't really take a position on it because he's arguing that Yolanda's support isn't completely accurate.

However, his flaw is that his argument rests on a possible "could be dangerous" premise to a definite "causes [physical harm]" conclusion.

Not entirely certain why E is incorrect/"conflicts" with the letter writer's view. The stimulus ends by saying Roach Ender was tested by conducting "many well-documented studies". How can we assume that means all 4000+ species?

The stimulus only says that vexone is effective against all the species. Answer choice E says "tested against" - are we to assume that the letter writer only knew the efficacy of vexone because they tested their product? Why is it not possible for them to know that vexone is effective through other means, and their studies simply corroborated that fact? Why must it be that they tested against all the species?

#help (Added by Admin)

The moment you think "...they could have lived in the Northern half...", you know it's CBT, not a MBF.

In one of the past lessons, JY talks about how truth is not the same thing as validity. Whether the argument is valid or not doesn't matter, so the fact that it makes assumptions also doesn't matter. You are asked to accept everything the stimulus says at face value.

The stimulus starts with "The southern half of a certain region of the earth..." So why can't Plesiosaurs live in a different region that is also underwater? The moment an AC becomes possible in the world of the stimulus, you know it's not a MBF.

I think you know it's exclusive because of the two possible necessary conditions. Assuming you satisfy both sufficient conditions (i.e., it's unpopular with both faculty and students), you can't both "modify" a policy AND scrap it to "adopt" a new one.

To me, the passage seems to indicate that ubiquity is linked to efficacy (i.e., the more committees there are, the more successful the country is at reducing occupational injuries). Wouldn't it be a safe assumption then that there is a difference between mandated committees and voluntary ones simply because of the effect it has on the number of committees?

I get why A is right - just trying to figure out why B is wrong...

I don't think it matters if the students knowingly or unknowingly committed plagiarism. For all we know, Walters fully intended to commit plagiarism. But what we do need is for the Professor to believe that the student committed plagiarism unknowingly. And AC C is the only one that speaks to that.

I'll take a stab at answering your second question.

The stimulus says that gas costs twice as much in Chester than it does in Tilsen. So to make the math easy, let's say gas is $1 in Tilsen, and in Chester, it costs twice that amount (so multiply by 2 = $2).

It goes on to say if the cost of gas in Chester ever becomes more than twice that in Tilsen, then the company will move to Tilsen.

The conclusion says if the price increases at all in Chester, they will move to Tilsen. So based on the scenario above, if the price of gas in Chester ever becomes more than $2, the company will move.

But $2 is twice the price of Tilsen's gas so long as the price in Tilsen stays at $1. Imagine that Chester's price goes up to $3. BUT at the same time, Tilsen's price also went up to $2. Just because Chester's price increased doesn't mean they would have to move, because Tilsen's price also went up and the difference is no longer 2x (Chester's gas would now have to cost more than $4 to be twice that of Tilsen).

For the conclusion to be true, the price of Tilsen's gas can't increase. Think of ratio as a slider in this case - the higher that Tilsen's price increases, the greater that Chester's gas will have to cost to be twice that.

The stimulus says that the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined over the last 5 years. So to presume that the first 2 years prior to the seat-belt law indicates an increase in fatalities is both an assumption and a direct contradiction of the premise.

Even if the seat-belt law only lead to a decrease in fatalities over the last 3 years, that still offers an alternative explanation for why the decrease isn't only attributable to skilled drivers.

Interested :)

Keep in mind that an NA question is asking for something that is true if the argument is valid - not for an AC that necessarily strengthens the argument. The argument says resolutions of lenses are ultimately irrelevant because all modern lenses project really detailed images onto film. So if all modern lenses do that, advertising the resolution of a lens won't really distinguish it from a competitor's camera.

An assumption that must be true is B... that there isn't some other difference between two cameras' resolution that would give one an advantage over the other. B is ruling out the scenario in which even though the lenses all produce equally detailed images on the film, the differences in resolution would have an impact on how much of an available film's flaws matter. Because if it did do that, then the resolution would matter - thereby making the argument invalid.

Thank you everyone for your replies!!! My friends are incredibly encouraging and supportive, but I always take that with a grain of salt given their bias. I trust your words of wisdom and will definitely keep pushing through. And yes, I am URM and planning on milking that for all it's worth :)

I've heard good things about:

One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School

https://www.amazon.com/One-Turbulent-Story-Harvard-School/dp/0143119028

Don't know if this answers your question, but schedule permitting, I think you should definitely go for the interview, even if you are not interested in the school. If you are asking "what kinds of questions do they ask", then you will probably have that same question for other interviews with schools you are interested in.

So this will probably be a good way to practice and hone your skills as an interviewee. You might also end up learning something about the school that piques your interest.

@kwang4163-3 Had no idea that law schools calculated abroad GPA into cumulative... Do you know if law schools do that if the undergrad uni doesn't take it into account? It shows up on my undergrad transcript, but does not have any bearing on my cumulative gpa.

@uhinberg359 Thanks for the tip, will definitely go for the June 07 test!