@jac376 said:
Flaw: The correlation of Ra, C, and (C --> Rh) does not mean there is a causation from C to Ra. The answer which strengthens this argument will show that (Rh --> Ra) (C causes Ra because it causes Rh which causes Ra) or directly ...
Interesting. You're positive the NA isn't actually necessary? I'm curious about these examples. I didn't look closely at it, but PT 71.S1.Q11 seems to be about pollution. Is that the right reference? PT means PrepTest, right?
You can find JY doing LR in PT69 S1+S4, and PT71 S1+S3. And Jon also had an epic timed LR section video, which took him only 19 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4vY0KpviJw&index=6&list=LLaknkMoRl59wmjfBX67-nFg
@sunnyp89 - the answers above nail it: more "kinds of lamps" does not explain "more lamps"
And please remove the verbatim question.
Maybe @"Dillon A. Wright" can help with editing out the copyrighted content. The question is PT36, S1, Q23
The stimulus doesn't allow us to conclude this. Grass clippings are one way to get micro-nutrients, but the stimulus doesn't say it's the ONLY way. Thus, when the ...