Hi! I don't really understand why B is wrong even after reading numerous explanations. If areas subject to **more fires** (which is true when the level of rainfall drops below normal for an extended period of time like in a drought) tend to be **less ...
I still don't understand why "the only" in answer choice B is valid. My original prephrase was "vote for L or N -> unacceptable." B says: unacceptable -> vote for L and N. It seems that B is the exact reversal of my prephrase.
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 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 ...
Why is the correct answer E and not C? How is the answer not attributing vacancy laws to that increase when they say "...increase crime while purporting to decrease it"?
can someone explain why D is correct and the other ACs are incorrect? Maybe its bc its ab economic theory, but i struggled with this one and ended on D only bc the others seemed less plausible.
Sharing afew LR problems with conditional language I'd saved over the past few months:
PT09 S2 Q13
PT51 S1 Q21
PT51 S3 Q14
PT51 S3 Q19
PT60 S3Q12
PT71 S3 Q11
PT71 S3 Q17