I just noticed that Berkeley claims to have had 6,039 Fall 2018 applicants, and they claim to have accepted 314 of them. This seems like it would result in a roughly 5% acceptance rate, rather than the 20% listed on the predictor page. Can anyone explain this apparent disparity? Does this mean they actually accepted around 1,200 applicants and 900 didn't accept their offers of admission?
I believe I understand what you're saying, but isn't the argument asserting that Dooney County is not flat and that the terraces are evidence of that? If this is the case, within the context of this argument, wouldn't those terraces not only have to be built to prevent erosion, but specifically to prevent water erosion? Otherwise, it seems like the terraces wouldn't be relevant to the argument at all.
Don't get me wrong, I picked A but also could not eliminate B. It just seems like both are necessary to the argument but I know I must be missing something.
This one is confusing me. I put A reasoning that if A is not the case, then the farmers could be building terraces to prevent any type of erosion. This would mean that Dooney County could still be flat and the building of terraces meaningless to the argument. I'm confused as to how A and B do not have the same effect on the argument. #help
I'm confused. Am I misunderstanding the government's reply? I thought that the government was claiming that no evidence could exist that would exonerate (or even support) the defendant. If this is true, wouldn't it mean that they couldn't have destroyed evidence that couldn't exist? #help
Or should I read the reply to mean that there is currently no evidence that would support the defendant, which could be true if they had already destroyed it?