S: An owner of a work of art have the ethical right to destroy that artwork if (1) they find it morally/visually distasteful or (2) caring for it becomes inconvenient. This right to ...
I got this one right almost instinctively (I didn't map this out), but I have a question about the phrase "**_can best be explained if_**" in the second sentence of the ...
Im having a little trouble understanding why answer choice D is correct. I understood the flaw that an absence of proof for something to be false, does not make it true the minute i read it.
However the wording in Answer choice D is confusing me. ...
(P.S., I know this is a long and dense post, but there's an opportunity at the bottom for anyone reading this to get paid, so hopefully that's an incentive to read this :P)
Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback from you smart people on the ...
I'm a little confused about why the video explanation shows the first sentence as PISM --most--> /DOR. I thought that the "without" would negate the first part of the sentence and it would look like /PISM --most--> DOR. If someone could explain ...
I find myself struggling with Disagree questions. It's difficult to keep the moving parts together and find the overlap. Especially when there are embedded clauses which obfuscate the domain of discourse or in particularly loooong questions such as this ...
Im in the middle of BRing and i like AC E bc how does the author know that having so much artwork that can satisfy every taste imaginable will affect someones aesthetic fulfilment.
But AC D... does the author have to assume there is such a scenario? ...
I chose (C) assuming that "hope" is a certain effect that can translate into a medical effect. Now, I see that is an unwarranted assumption. But as for (D), I found the term, "the medical treatment the patient is receiving" too vague and I didn't know ...
I got this question right during the PT by POE (A-B reverses necessary and sufficient terms, ACD all use most-statements) but in BR I really had to labor over the logic. It ...
So this question was an oddball for me. I know it's something we've seen before where we are given a principle/rules/whatever and we have to apply it to given situations. I normally do a fairly decent job of keeping track of all the "rules" in my head but ...
This question tripped me up a bit, not because I didn't understand what I was being asked to do, but because I couldn't really differentiate between some of the answer choices.
for AC b i equated many=some and chose e instead as it was a statement for “most” systems….but suppose since it is ratios in consideration similarity weighs more (hence not ...
would AC e be a close second....i seem to have glossed over d and missed it choosing e realizing my folly on BR. But isn't e another version of d so plausible in the absence ...
would it be a good way to think alternative to JY's explanation that answer choice B is wrong merely in having few as the existential indicator rather than a universal ...
So... I am watching the PT 61 LG section while FPing and I am having a little trouble understanding how JY got the contrapostive for R2 /U in the game. Can someone please clarify? Thank you so much!