Not sure how to tag admin and sorry if this is a bit nit-picky but I just noticed that the comparative art passage on PT88 is only labeled as an art passage, not comparative, so it doesn't come up if you sort RC passages for comparatives when making ...
In the stem it talks about a case of polio occurring due to the administration of a vaccine of 12 per year. By doing an alt vaccine, it gets cut into half 6
Doesn't answer E attack the premise? Since in the passage it says that extractable known field remains the same and answer choice E says the lands that are unextractable are considered extractable now.
Could a kind 7sager double-check my logic? After reading the argument, I thought it was well-supported. If it is in fact a poor argument, could someone point out why?
And does D weaken the argument because it provides a potential reason why ...
First of all, the conclusion. There are no conclusion indicators and I was confused between 2 statements to select for the conclusion. Secondly, answer choice (A) and (C), aren't they basically both saying the same ...
I'm a little confused about the relationship between the taxes and bus fare in this stimulus. In the first sentence, when it says bus fares are subsidized by city taxes, does that mean at least some of the fare is covered by these taxes? And when the ...
Can someone explain to me why the answer isn't D?
My thinking was that D has to be assumed because if helmet wouldn't prevent the fatality then there would be no point in requiring the helmet since they would just be dead anyway? Morbid thinking ...
Is this a correlation-causation argument because it assumes that the increase in high school dropouts is the only thing that is causing the increase in recruitment among 18 year olds? And why would the author draw such a conclusion?
I can understand how ACs A-D are incorrect. I am truly struggling to see how E is correct.
My contention here is that even if a greater proportion of crimes are reported in recent years, those independent surveys would still include all of ...
When reading the stimulus, I thought that the "population" meant all of the delta green ground beetles. How am I supposed to know that the "population" refers just to the observed number of delta green ground beetles?
Why does C weaken the argument if the low-income individuals aren't taxpayers? Isn't the city councilor's proposal to raise bus fares only meant to help taxpayers?
Edit: Answer choice C says "all" councilors believe that low-income people ...
I think I get it? Non-individuals can buy cars too but what if answer choice e had stated that the proportion of individuals and non-individuals (i.e., corporations etc) purchasing cars were about the same (50/50) Would that make answer choice e incorrect ...
For #2, we can affirm from the first paragraph that MLK was influenced by at least one work from a transcendentalist, namely MLK was influenced by David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience"; the correct answer choice says as much and yet the correct answer ...
I understand why the answer is A, however I do not understand why it cannot also be D. I know there is only one answer I am just unsure why D is definitively wrong. Thanks #HELP
**Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - ...
The title is pretty self-explanatory but I need help on #7. Why is E incorrect? And what makes A the right fit? I feel that I have no strategy when it comes to these argument completion style questions, especially when it comes to answer choices that just ...
I don't understand why D is incorrect. So we are trying to explain why these canaries go through this yearly process of losing their neurons and then replacing them with new ones and the author claims that it's so that these canary brains don't get so huge ...
I got the answer right by confidently eliminating all the others.
I am still confused about the correct answer choice. The first sentence in the stimulus implies that more than .5 grams have the capacity to neutralize.. Not .5 grams. ...
For a question like this that states "Which of the following indicates an error in the reasoning leading to the prediction", am I looking to attack a major premise instead of the conclusion? I got this question wrong and I am having difficulty discerning ...
I am really struggling with reading this chain. I was under the understanding that two "some" statements lead to an invalid argument, so I didn't think we could make a Must Be True statement. How do you read the chain to get to the correct AC?