How can we assume that all works of art refer to all films?? Q6 is stupid

Some questions require certain level of seemingly objective but actually very subjective assumptions, which is nasty

This question requires the assumption that the fear of lawsuits to say anything bad about public figures absolutely prevents these public figures from having a bad reputation, which is pretty stupid because it's possible that although no one says anything bad about public figures, these public figures could still have bad reputations.

LG was too time-consuming for me. Did well on the two RCs and LR but the LG, guess i would have to retake it in January

Just a bad question. I still think AC B is right because the particular produce that Jason buys from Kelly's could very well not have be grown with pesticides. AC C to me is so wrong and irrelevant because not all non-pesticides goods are labeled, and even though they are labeled it does not justify that Jason must read the labels and differentiate them every time he's there. Just a bad question overall.

The fact that the stimulus does not say that M's supporters are not supporting B makes me so confused. I mean the fact that although M's supporters believe B is guilty does not mean they are not supporting B just because B is guilty.

Haha I like your comment. Sometimes we are tired of certain types of passages

Not good questions really we have to find the best answer with some assumptions

Another BS question that is not rigorous. These people could have debts, but what happens if they don't? Completely BS

I still do not buy into this question because the conclusion of the argument literally says that reestablishing the population would ensure that the dwarf owl would make their winter home here, who cares if the suitable nesting sites must be present? Even if the population is reestablished it is not a sufficient condition for suitable nesting sites to be built. What if reestablishing the population does not reestablish/build suitable nesting sites?

I don't think this is a good question. Even if there were two or even 100 super large asteroids struck the earth during the period, they could still not produce enough dust. Sometimes there old PTs are just not rigorous enough.

But even if the side effects are severe enough to make many people avoid using it, it is irrelevant to whether the mixture is effective or not. The mixture can be a effective cold remedy while causing severe side effects, therefore AC B is irrelevant.

AC C says the mixture is powerful enough to prevent further colds, but it does not say that the mixture is effective treating cold. Therefore AC C is irrelevant too.

Many of the old PT questions are not rigorous question, this one is a good example.

It was hard to understand that voluntary=free will

I feel like this is not a good question because even though if pilots routinely disregards the warnings, as long as pilots still at least cares about ONE warning, it is still theoretically safer than not having the system.

Well, I still don't truly understand what the text tries to say as the "countries" in the premise might not be the "countries concerned" among several European nations.

#help (Added by Admin)

Ryan, thank you very much for your help!

I guess understanding some LR questions occurred on the very early versions of PTs and actual tests require the test takers to have some understanding of the outside knowledge relevant to the question. Which was unfair. Fortunately I have not seen any questions like this on the more recent versions of PTs and actual tests.

I don't get why answer B isn't wrong. What do public relations programs having to do with any of the information aforementioned in the article. Sure public relations can do this and that, but with the absence of the existence of public relations programs, shouldn't this answer be crossed out? I understand that answer E is weak in weakening the argument, but since public relations stated in answer B have zero relevance to the article? I don't know whether public relations programs exist, just like I don't know if aliens/earthquakes/dinosaurs exist. I hope I never see a question like this again. It is so absurd to link something never mentioned in the article and call it the right answer choice.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

I think this question(or the answers) should have never existed because the answer does not express the main conclusion. How can we tell if democratic institutions can only exist in democracy but not in non-democracy? And how must voting be a necessity component of democracy? People probably can vote in both democracy and non-democracy because the article does not say that people who can vote are only in democracy but not non-democracy. Even if I use outside knowledge, people in many non-democracies can still vote, although there might be restrictions and corruption. Again, I think this whole question should be edited. We are not supposed

How come? Since low humidity can be bad for computers, and no where does it state that a room can be too dry for the optimal maintenance of its furnishings, why isn't B right?

#help (Added by Admin)

I am having a difficulty understanding the answer A to question 14. How can you determine that the people who can vote in this question to be people in democracy? No where in the passage except for "then democratic institutions will be..." that merely states something about democracy. I am having a really hard time believing this answer is correct. Please help!

#help (Added by Admin)