Hi all - I'd really appreciate your help on understanding the argument in this question.
I get the gap in this question is that just because first doctrine states that "all historical events must be explained in economic factors" doesn't ...
Can someone help explain this question to me? It's the first LR question I haven't been able to understand, even after blind review and review. I chose answer choice B.
This question proved to be incredibly challenging for me. Could someone please define how the argument used two different uses of the term "selfish?" Thanks in advance!
Congenial guests and plentiful supply (food and drinks) will ensure a successful dinner party. Sylvia has prepared more than enough to eat and drink and her guests are congenial therefore her party is certain to be a success.
How did you rule out Answer Choice "C"? Some folks mentioned, the AC gives only "what's valued" and that doesn't constitute a resolution. What if, people got better at being ambidextrous as they grew older and that's why the % of LH Population drops as you ...
Can anyone explain why B is right here?
It seems, when watching JY's explanation, that the reason why B is right is because it provides an explanation for the phenomena-- perhaps the other dinosaur was a baby, and that is why it ...
I was stuck between B and C, and ultimately ended up going with C. I immediately crossed out D because I didn't think it was relevant. Would really appreciate someone's insight.
If someone could help me out with this passage, I will be eternally grateful
23.) I just think B and D are saying the same thing? What is the difference? I found the answer in the first sentence of the passage but I think both B and D are ...
I couldn't see how the term "normal" was used differently between the two speakers? Would someone be able to clarify how to focus on that? I completely brushed over that.
I don't understand how A would strengthen the argument. If even a few members of Group B ate nutritious breakfasts and didn't increase their productivity as much as Group A did, wouldn't that weaken the argument even if Group A has a stronger correlation ...
Why is A incorrect? Wouldn't this reinforce that connection between exposure to germs and a higher number of family members as being the reason why the kids have lower incidence of allergies?