Anyway, thinking about it in terms of pie charts helped me. The stimulus makes a claim about the size of the pie not getting smaller. However, the evidence that it uses only talks about the distribution of the pie. So yes a 10% increase for part suppliers may seem good but this "increase" becomes irrelevant if the pie in question shrunk
Ok so I didn't want to watch the 36-minute explanation and ended up spending way more time figuring it out myself
yeah I ended up eliminating E only on the basis of relative isn't absolute
I got a lot faster by going mostly based on intuition or limited reasoning in the initial run-through of the question and then really taking my time during blind review and hashing out the logic of every answer choice. Over time I got better at seeing underlying logic more quickly and more importantly I was more confident in my initial shallow dip
So Ive been taking preptests and I seem to be stuck getting -1/-5 on LR. ITS DRIVING ME INSANE. I cant seem to get a perfect score on this section and was wondering how some y'all are studying for LR or how you went about drastically reducing the number of LR questions you get wrong?
omg I love you for this, that was my exact thought process in selecting E
same I think I need to practice translating the answer choices cause for a lot of the harder questions the answer choices are just not what i would expect/ phrase things
I think B assumes that the university president thinks that the quality of education depends on tuition costs when he's actually saying parents think like that. Maybe he thinks the school already offers great education but they need to raise prices to convince prospective students/families. Basically, it's not necessary that the president also agree with B.
On the other hand, if A is not true the whole argument falls apart. If the president's explanation doesn't apply in this scenario (meaning tuition and quality have nothing to do with the decline) then what the point of the argument ya know
I had the same issue, but I think for this question the conclusion is relevant, L.E. says gambling is wrong and children raised in an atmosphere...will NOT develop good character. If we can prove that children can develop good character in such an atmosphere (around gambling) then the argument is substantially weakened