I think the difficulty is the condition statements use words such as maybe, some... it just doesn't have a definitive definition for each individual entity.
E: I thought it is wrong because "inspire them to read on their own later" doesn't precisely matches "develop an interesting in reading." I'm not entirely convinced by the explanation in the video.
I think A is wrong because it doesn't have overwhelming evidence. The teach THINKS... (for me, thinking something up is definitely not overwhelming evidence.) Let me know if i'm wrong.
I will take a chance to try to clarify question 24. This question has a lot to do with specificity/particularity. In the first sentence of the paragraph, the author stated that the slight different properties between the GABA receptors can have different influences on brain functions. Note that gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is a specific molecule (In organic chemistry, their is only one kind of GABA molecule, any alteration of the molecule will render the molecule to a different molecule) that has the ability to influence different GABA receptors (molecular receptors generally proteins and have complicated structure. Therefore, there are many different kind of GABA receptors). Now, what pharmacologist can do is modify the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) molecule if "the precise effect of each neurotransmitter-gated ion channel is deciphered." Presumably, these modified GABA molecules (not GABA anymore, chemists will give them a new name) will specifically target "specific receptors on defined categories of neurons..." Now, let me ask you a question: if GABA is able to influence GABA receptors, why pharmacologists don't just use GABA molecule? The answer is pharmacologists want a molecule that specifically influence particular electrical signals (GABA's influence is to broad). Have all all this, imaging you're a pharmacologist and you are trying to design a molecule that target to influence specific neuron signal transmission for a particular brain disorder, let me ask you another some questions: Would you target neurons that "possess channels for ions"? Or, would you target neurons that "contain receptor molecules"? Or, would you target neurons that "react to binding by neurotransmitters"? No, no, no! Because every neuron possess ion channels, contains receptor molecules, and reacts to neurotransmitters. Now, would you target a neuron that "respond to drug treatment" or "influence particular brain functions"? Think about it, do virtually all neurons respond to drug treatment? Because pharmacologists care about particularity to specific brain disorders, they want to choose specific neurons.
I'm biology major. I did research with professors. In my opinion, this is an unbelievably easy article compare to research papers. However, I don't expect I will encounter this kind of passage on the real test. :)
Damn! Didn't read carefully. I just assumed there's a 'only' at the conclusion. I spent a lot time trying to come up with an alternative flaw.
Does anyone think (E) would work if it said "most people living near power lines never develop caner. Thus, it's unreasonable to deny a connection between living near power lines and not developing cancer even through a significant number of people living near power lines develop cancer."
I chose B because I thought scientists salaries come from government funding. And If the scientists salaries increased at a rate higher than inflation, it is therefore at least one of the reason to argue government funding is inadequate. Anybody knows why that thinking is wrong?
Why do they put a NOW at the end of the stimulus?? I thought they were trying to emphasize something.
Among all well-designed public places, well-designed coffeehouses can only be a part of the whole (the stimulus actually mentions restaurants! Smart!). So, well-designed coffeehouses ←s→ well-designed public places ‑m→ feature art. Therefore, no inference can be made.
Hello! I saved my password on my personal computer and sometimes i need to login to a school computer to print some workouts, it prevents me from logging into another computer. And if i try too many times, it allows me to login as a free account. wield...
What I got from E is that red wine cannot be the cause of lower rate of heart disease for all population. (because red wine is correlated with lower rate of heart disease in France, but not in other regions.) Thus, it weakens the argument that red wine is a healthier choice for North Americans. What's wrong with this thinking, J.Y.?
In the last sentence, what does "doing so" refer to?