Real RC (REALLY TOUGH!): 14th amendment, music/words (comparative)

Real LG (fairly easy/standard/no oddball misc games): putting people in booths, musicians/ exhibitions

Can anyone please confirm if the 26 LR with the N desert question was real? I also think it had a question about some electric transmission line...

I couldn't find the gap for the life of me, but I see it now. It's assuming that this correlation does in fact occur. D is strengthening the likelihood that this correlation (unstable climate → less food production → Roman empire failing) occurs by providing its opposite (stable climate → Roman empire thriving).

I guess you need to assume people native to the islands = people who live on the islands, which is a reasonable assumption. But my issue with this question is that the Kuna WHO HAVE MOVED to the mainlands could be the same group of Kuna who are originally native to the islands..... it does a terrible job specifying which subset of Kuna people they're talking about.....

This is so tricky. Even if A is true (Yeung IS a layer in the company's legal department and he/she wasn't told about the changes), then there could still be other lawyers in the department who were told. Thus, this tiny gap remains and A cannot be a true sufficient assumption. C, on the other hand, rules out the possibility that ANY lawyer in the company's legal department was informed about the changes. This is a true SA.

We are looking for a value judgment as a conclusion. "too often, they resort to using advertised price cuts" sounds like a judgment that warrants support. D is actually a premise, which attempts to support C, the conclusion, but fails to do so adequately. When in doubt, always go with the one that needs more support.

Tough question. I was stuck between B, C, and D - it's been a while since I've oscillated between three answer choices, which goes to show that I failed to carefully isolate the premise and conclusion.

C: I was late to my meeting.

P: The parking area was closed for maintenance, and had that maintenance been done on any other day, I would have gotten to the meeting on time because I wasted time looking for another parking spot.

Now the reasoning EXPLICITLY deals with the current state of the parking spot. So other factors such as whether or not other people were late, whether the businessperson is usually late to meetings, etc. don't impact the reasoning. We need more information about the state of the parking area (with/without maintenance).

As for C... we would need to know about the parking patterns in the building's vicinity on days when the parking IS open because this would help us understand if what the businessperson experienced on that day with maintenance was ENOUGH (i.e. not negligible) in terms of making him/her actually late.

What if the parking area is usually crowded/congested or otherwise unavailable EVEN on days that don't have maintenance? Well, then the businessperson wouldn't have been late. What if the parking area is usually wide open? Then it strengthens the argument that the person wouldn't have been late had it not been for the maintenance.

#3 - I can't necessarily see why calling the three points raised in A "issues" would be incorrect because I interpreted this word to mean points, generally speaking... but I think B is ultimately wrong because of "unexpected benefits" -- there were never any such UNEXPECTED ones mentioned.

#help (Added by Admin)

Few = some (not most). The gap is between RECEIVING free nutritious breakfasts and actually consuming such breakfast. Plant A's workers received such breakfast at work, but Plant B's workers did not - this does not mean that Plant B's workers did not have access too nutritious breakfasts outside of work, or that they didn't consume nutritious breakfasts as much as Plant A's workers did through some alternative source. Answer choice A blocks these possibilites.

I think you're referring to potentially introducing a control factor to strengthen the credibility of a scientific experiment, making sure that your selection groups are not biased in any way. Hope this helps!

Wow it's so tough to find the equivocation flaw under timed.

P: Earth would have retained enough heat to keep oceans from freezing → level of greenhouse gases (methane, CO2, etc.) were higher 3 billion years ago than it is today

C: Level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher 3 billion years ago than it is today.

But what if you had exactly the same amount of CO2 3 billion years ago today, but more methane or some other greenhouse gas that trapped heat in the atmosphere? This would weaken the argument.

B states that there is much less methane TODAY than there was 3 billion years ago -- this means that back then, methane was much more plentiful - this could potentially knock out CO2 as a contender for trapping heat in the atmosphere back then. We can't say for sure or by how much, but it still weakens.

E is factually inaccurate. The argument never assumes that there is no overlap among ice cream eaters and cheddar cheese eaters. We're not even concerned about the relative ration between ice cream/cheddar cheese eaters - this is kind of like a red herring. The flaw rests in the correlation/causation - there might be another explanation for why ice cream sales are declining.

With enough time and practice, anything is possible. Can you give us your score breakdown by section so we can give you more specific advice on what to drill, where to maximize your time, etc.?

Argument: Despite the fact that there is an enormous number of transactions processed daily by banks, if a customer accidentally receives money, it's rare that bank's auditors will not notice.

A) I guess A requires some assumptions for it to work: that using a different set of programs to "double-check" large transactions would make it less likely for errors to occur -- this is a reasonable assumption.

B) This isn't relevant because the customer is being ACCIDENTALLY credited with a large sum of money (so any evidence regarding intentional transfers wouldn't really strengthen the reasoning).

C) I thought at first this might be speaking to increased transparency in the banking process, and thus could potentially strengthen, but it actually isn't relevant for the argument. Transparency doesn't mean increased oversight.

D) This one is tricky but again, this is irrelevant for our purposes. We can't necessarily assume that # of bank auditors increasing relative to # of customer accounts = more oversight in the actual audit process. Also, slowly? How slow? Is it slow enough to be negligible? Could be.

E) Making it less likely for hackers to come into the system doesn't explain/help the reasoning that accidental transfers will not go undetected.

Gilbert assumes chemically synthesized = NOT natural.

Sabina assumes chemically synthesized + found occurring naturally = natural.

To strengthen Sabina's argument, we have to show that if you're found occurring naturally in a substance, then you are indeed a natural substance. E states that all substances are considered natural, unless you do NOT occur naturally in any source. The latter half of this isn't met by the substance in question, so this helps the argument.

This one is kind of tough. I thought it was "prohibitive" at first, but Tyne actually doesn't have an issue with the fact that the regulations are "prohibitive" according to Marisa. Rather, he accepts that the regulations could have been prohibitive, but due to a specific reason (activists' ploy to restrict development further).

But the word "values" shifts in meaning from Marisa's argument to Tyne's argument. For Marisa, she is referring to the economical or money value of the undeveloped areas. For Tyne, he is referring to value in the moral sense of preserving natural, undisturbed areas.

Zone in on the argument's reasoning - (premise: greatest journalists have been most entertaining) and (conclusion: it's not the case that entertainment value of news reporting increases as caliber of reporting decreases).

SA must bridge the gap between caliber of reporting and greatest journalists - such that the additional premise makes the argument valid (shows that entertainment value can increase/decrease in the same direction as caliber of reporting).

POE is the easiest way to get to this answer. Actually understanding and breaking down E during a timed take is a waste of time.

I guess A is factually incorrect. "But willingness to pay is not proportional to need" isn't actually DISPUTING the explanation at hand - it just raises one consideration (assumption) that need not be true, which the reasoning of the argument rejects.

4 CBT, one MBF - anything that doesn't outrightly contradict the stimulus is a CBT, as "random sounding" as it could be. Case in point: answer choice E - we have no idea about protection against "erosion of media freedoms" - so it could be true.

Conditions:

Accepted Wang's Law

Know Results of BE Experiment

These two things contradict Minsk Hypothesis

But do we know if the scientists in question KNOW of the contradiction itself? This wasn't explicitly stated, so you can't necessarily conclude that scientists REJECT Minsk Hypothesis. You must know of the contradiction in the first place in order to reject it. You can't reject something that you're not generally aware of -- that is what A is trying to get at.

Existence of contradiction =/= knowledge of contradiction

Ahh, I read B as "Are the new street signs considerably more expensive to manufacture than KEEPING current street signs were?" - but it just asks about the price of current signs. We don't care about this because the cost of current signs isn't a factor of the budget in the overall plan to replace all signs. Relative costs of MANUFACTURING new vs. old signs in this case doesn't matter.

We just need to know if replacing all signs is a financially worthwhile endeavor - which is what C is getting at - if a certain percentage of street signs are already being replaced due to ordinary maintenance, then perhaps we don't need to execute this plan after all.

Tricky between A and C. I think A's wrong because Pedro actually never discusses loyalty (he only talks about giving special privileges, which is different from loyalty - you don't need to be loyal to someone to give them preferential treatment).

C on the other hand - Nick implicitly agrees while Pedro explicitly disagrees. Nick states that the university should NOT give the contract to the donor's competitor. THIS IS IMPLICITLY SAYING THAT THE DONOR SHOULD RECEIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

This one is challenging because it's a bit counterintuitive. We are trying to strengthen the reasoning (that snow/ice reflect sunlight better than ocean/land) by removing potential factors that may make ocean/land better reflectors OR better sources in terms of cooling the atmosphere in some other way. C shows that ocean/land actually does the opposite of what we want (warming the atmosphere), thus eliminating the process of ocean/land potentially cooling the atmosphere "better" than snow/ice.

Just because they could/would doesn't mean that they WANT to contact.

E is wrong because we don't know about the actual NUMBER of self-reports of university-age students and personal ads in the newspaper.