- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hi DM me if you are in Pacific time zone! I'm in the same range studying for August.
I think discussing your thought with someone as you are reading the passage actually helps! If you can get -2 with LG and LR combined, that means you don't have any problem with reading. You may just not doing it in the correct way.
Hey, the key is to understand the conclusion here is : to help the patient heal, the psychotherapist must focus on the need for positive change in those relationships.
The conclusion have this structure of to do something, one MUST do something. The flaw here is why can't I do something else to achieve the same results? why is focusing on need for positive change in relationships absolutely necessary?
D is saying no psychotherapist can help help solely by addressing internal causes which means to help them heal, they must do things other than internal causes, which is perfect.
C is talking about patient but the conclusion is concluding about what psychotherapist must do, so it is irrelevant.
Hey! D actually supports E. You can say the studies failed to consider one probable cause of lethargy therefore researcher's conclusion was not adequately justified but NOT the other way around. so E is the conclusion because it is being supported by the rest of the argument.
That's the exactly the premise to get to the conclusion.
In order to guarantees the truth, instead of using MAY, it needs to be modified as:
THE ONLY way students can attain perfect knowledge is to immerse themselves in a country where it is spoken.
MAY opens up the possibilities that even if you can't get perfect by this method, there are other methods you can achieve the same goal.
D is wrong because it does not guarantees the truth. The premise says the best students of a modern language MAY so immerse themselves.
(understand words → knowing definition) --> (understand word → understand the words that occur in that definition)
If babies understand words, but some babies don’t understand words that occur in that definition, that is: understand words and /(understand the words that occur in that definition), the negation of the necessary condition, so if you run contrapositive, negate the sufficient, it will be: understand words but not all knowing the definition, which is answer choice E.
This argument is easy to understand if you have a clear timeline in mind.
For RIGHT NOW, because human food-producing capacity has increased more rapidly, which is cited as a fact, Malthus’s position is wrong.
However in the FUTURE, agricultural advances will compromise biological diversity. Malthus’s position will likely be proven correct because of this lack of diversity.
Hi I'm interested! I completed CC, PT 35-70 and currently working on PT 80s and up, 2 PT a week while full time working. Pacific Time. Would like to find someone to go over some questions together once or twice a week, available on every Thursday, Friday or Saturday.
Can anyone please help explain this question? very confused..
My thought:
C and S are required to leave their respective stations immediately to pursue any prisoner who attempts to escape.
prisoner escape --> leave
unless they are pursuing such a prisoner, C and S are forbidden to leave until their replacements have arrived.
leave --> replacement arrived or pursue prisoner ??? is that correct?
On 9-11pm, when they finished shifts and replacement arrived, it was discovered that C had violated these rules and S has not.
Pick could be true except:
A prisoner attempted to escape at 7pm, neither C or S left his or her station before 9pm.
Why is this the correct answer?
All the answer choices don't really make any sense to me. Not sure how to apply because the one person violate the other one did not situation completely threw me off...
Please help! Thank you!!!!
RRR
less overlap between malnurish and poverty in elderly than younger population
need to resolve the reasoning: poor can cause malnourish, but in elderly, many of them are not poor but still more malnourished, why?
A. doctors are less likely to diagnose old peeps - not because are less likely, because not correctly diagnosed
B. certain meds for older increase their nutrition needs - not because of poverty
C. old ppls more likely loss of apetite due to meds - not because of poverty
E. younger ppl less likely to have medical problems interfere with digestion - old ppl more likely - not because of poverty
connected here doesn't mean fish eat plankton is the connection but rather the decrease population in both is connected
Principle: if disproportionally effect low incomes, policy should not be made
Application: de-icing on roads corrodes cars, plan should be halted
AC B: road maintenance disproportionally effect low incomes
problem with this answer is de-icing and road maintenance are not the same thing. also, de-icing will effect cars for sure but we don't know anything about roads
D: connects corrosion of cars with disproportionally effecting lower income ppl
I am still in my early stage of studying. Can you share how many hours you devoted to LR to get -1 or -2? Thank you!
phenomenon: 1.painting does not contain see animals 2.Norway ppl must eat sea animals when traveling from the islands
conclusion: the theory of the painting is about their diet is not right
weaken the argument: to make the theory sounds right
A. they eat land animals ->attack 2.
B. there are probably other parts of paintings we didn't see contains see animals ->attack 1.
C.there are paintings about land animals, so what? we don't know if it is part of their diet, we only know about sea animals from the stimulus
D.preserve meets ->attack 2.
E. original inhabitants who eat meats made those paintings, they may still eat sea animals and make paintings somewhere else
Interested, but can only do it daily on days except Sundays and Mondays.