- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I'll review the games in PT61 and PT31. What I've been doing recently is writing X_ Y with a switch and then writing arrows pointing outwards from each side (- X(/em) _Y -> I'm now hyper aware whenever it says "at least" because, oh joy! More possibilities!
Thanks all!
If a scientist can solve a problem, then it can be formulated in such a way to make a scientific solution feasible.
I think in your video you addressed this by saying, what if they just came upon the solution by accident. Is that right?
I understand why C is the right answer, but I'm still struggling to see exactly what makes B wrong.
Could someone post where the lesson is on embedded conditionals? Thanks!
Hello gamers,
I seem to always get stuck on sequencing games where one of the rules involves having "at least two spaces between X and Y". I get particularly stuck when there's a switch on top so it can either be X _ _ Y or Y _ _ X. Furthermore, sometimes I skip over the "at least" part, which ensures other issues... I know this uses the same concepts as all other games, but for some reason this kind of rule always takes me longer to get my head around. Does anyone else have this issue?
As for improving time, anyone know of certain games with this quality? I want to do as many as possible so I can get more comfortable.
Thanks!
Sophia
I'm also very interested! My last day at work is next week and then will need help to stay motivated!
I got this question right because in theory, I understood that consumption needed to be more than mining in the second year.
However, I do have a question about this math. I was initially hung up on the idea that more could be consumed than mined in a given year. I thought we could only measure mining and consumption that occurred in the given year.
Why must you carry over the mining from the previous year? Isn't that a tiny assumption? It would mean we are talking about total coal supply (that can be added up over time) rather than from coal mined solely in the year mentioned.
As I'm writing this I see that in order for the stimulus to even make sense, you must carry over mining supplies...
Are these type of questions, with the extra long question stem containing basically a third paragraph, common?
I'll also add that thinking of it as a MBT rather than a MSS makes the answer jump out more. Didn't see the note when I first did the question!
I mean in this specific instance, the answer choice can be found not in the most difficult part of the passage. So yes, I fully agree that to get this question right, you do need to understand the entire passage. Thanks for the clarification!
To choose answer A, you just need to notice that it's a restatement of the "rarer" sentence. Though the rest of the passage is the difficult part - parsing out the percentages - this is only in fact helpful to counter the wrong answer choices, and should not impact ones ability to chose the right answer. Is this correct?
This is of course assuming, as J.Y. points out, that you don't skim over A, freak out, re-read everything, become confused, and then chose the wrong answer choice, as I did..
Ok, so I understand why answer E is right, and I toyed with it for a while. However, I went with a different answer choice because I thought that the plant (C...) cannot be the exact same thing as the nucleomorph. Meaning, I didn't think that we can infer the plant itself was a product of endosymbiosis. I think I got a bit too bogged down in the terminology.
I chose C the first time I did this after first fiddling with A. After re-reading the stimulus, I think my confusion was with who was producing what. I didn't catch that white blood cells produce the myelin-destroying compound. However, this does make sense since it says "white blood cells attack the myelin sheath," somehow I just didn't make the link.
I originally chose C because the definition of vasopressin is in answer C. But, the definition is stated in the opposite direction of what the question is asking, which I caught on BR. What a confusing way to phrase answer choice B...
Is it a good idea when reviewing reading passages to break down by viewpoint/structure/tone? Even if there is only time to do this on BR I think this is really useful, especially in a passage like this where the details left me utterly confused (particularly towards the end of the first paragraph).
Actually, to amend my statement. I actually chose B but this is the same reason why I thought reason E was wrong.
Same! This is an excellent explanation of the "harm /= (does not equal) infected" assumption that I made too.
This question I found a bit confusing because of how it defined "Plants."
In my first read, I thought that the Manager of the Nuclear Plant was comparing it to other Nuclear Plants. With this assumption in mind, none of the answers were making sense because non specifically addressed how this nuclear plant was different from other nuclear plants.
After hearing JY's explanation I realize this is where I messed up and E makes perfect sense. Did anyone else have this experience? Is this a reasonable mistake to have made or is it somehow clear that "most other plants" refers just to all plants of any industrial nature, rather than purely Nuclear ones. Any thoughts would be welcome!
Could you classify this flaw as twist on an ad hominem flaw?