Recent Comments

When in doubt on PF questions, just choose A if it's near the end.

#feedback the explanation for 14 is absolutely ridiculous. It comes across like even they don't understand why the wrong answers are wrong. This question is so out of left field and we should have an explanation that helps us work through it.

For Q27, i incorrectly chose AC E. i thought the whole discussion of the title swap (Fake? Original?) in the first paragraph was basically to underline the fact that we can't make the judgement of fake vs. original. we don't exactly know what each means, so the answer to the question posed is unclear. the last paragraph is written to show that in some cultures, we can't identify whether something is considered fake or authentic. i definitely overthought this since I originally had AC D, but now i can't look past my reasoning for E #help

I have trouble with this too. I had to zoom out to see why AC D is better. For most of the passage, the author talks about two sides to the debate of if monetary quantification is adequate for a definition of prosperity. and then in the final paragraph, the author takes a side and say that the response from the economists is insufficient.
to me, it didn't feel like the author was focused on trying to provide alternatives. i also don't think the author would say that adding environmental health and happiness is all that we care about beyond money. it felt more like they were just bringing up counterexamples to demonstrates the insufficiency of money as the measurement. that really comes through when the author says "but this position dodges..." and makes the literary critic analogy, which leaves vague what standards precisely does make a good book / would make a good prosperity definition.

i didnt read the passage carefully enough to see "modern bones" for Q26 :( i was just thinking about how it didnt seem relevant

nevermind, I re-read and author says cohesion is necessary but not sufficient, and AC B doesn't do anything to it. (doesn't weaken bc lots of respectful dissent just means sufficient conditions weren't met; doesn't strengthen either bc doesn't show correlation of groupthink with cohesion). but I am still confused about what the author said about additional factors? wouldn't this still support That statement?

I still don't fully understand ques 22 AC B. I thought the author's content, esp looking at last paragraph, was that cohesiveness can increase chances of groupthink, but there are other relevant factors there, so we cannot make conclusive statements about groupthink?

For question 20, I thought that MP should always have what the author thinks, and in the last paragraph, the author's opinion comes out very strong--which is that in context of everything discussed in this passage, cohesiveness alone cannot account for groupthink, so further research on alternative causes is warranted. but the right AC doesn't address this?

This passage did things to me I would not wish on my worst enemy

The explanation discounts E way too quickly and doesnt give full reasoning in my opinion. I would prefer if it gave a more mathematical reasoning. For the record I got this question right but I was torn between A and E. I still to this day not know how to eliminate E, it still seems right to me lol. And I'm an electrical engineering major which is kinda sad on my part I guess.

reasoning says 'we dont know anything about enrollment sizes'. we kinda do though. we 'know' 1).

380/30 = 12.66 grads per night class
620/70 = 8.85 grads per /night class

night classes have higher enrollment on average. and this is a conservative answer. if you adjust my night class% from 30 to anything even lower, the disparity becomes larger.

if you make grads take more than 1 night class, then disparity becomes even larger.

i would love some help here. I'm assuming someone or 7sage will tell me I cant be making the assumption that we know <38% of classes are night classes. once this is not true my math falls apart I admit.

#help

I stared at it for a minute and a half and literally said "I am going to get this wrong. yolo." and picked a (wrong) answer. so glad I was not alone.

general claim .....

What is inspiring for me, is that the S -> N diagram was word for word and symbol for symbol including the contrapositive. My analysis of this question was completely accurate and I landed on choice E. The challenge I found with E was because I could not remember the what the opposite of "most" was and if it were equal to "fewer than the majority." After watching the explanation I specifically remember the lesson in the foundations where this wordplay is used and explained. I am learning this, and the knowledge is bouncing around in there. It is nice.

I chose E and then BR switched to A because it seemed like a weaker worded option.

Even though I prephrased the answer "The desire for food outweighs the desire for comfort when food & comfort do not exist together." Which is alike with answer choice E. second-guessing myself has become consistent and I am wondering if somewhere in the foundations I need to re-explore. I think indicator groups is a must.

This comment was from 6 years ago...but I was exactly here as well. D was my answer and then BR I chose C. I did not sacrifice accuracy on this one for speed. I sacrificed the work I put into arriving at the correct answer, and changing it to a seemingly consistent answer. More to do, more to learn! I hope you are a successful lawyer at this stage.

UGHHH the answer just jumps out at you during the 2nd look 😔

why would C weaken the conclusion? isn't it saying that no police show continued form last year?

I thought C was stronger than D because with D:
1) most of the last year's new shows were cancelled, which means some were not cancelled.
2) D says all new shows that were cancelled were police shows. this does not exclude the fact that all new shows that were not cancelled were also police shows.
3) maybe this year police shows are still not popular, but to a slightly lesser extent (last year 52% got cancelled, but this year only 49%). the conclusion no longer holds true.

Whereas C says: there were no police show last year that was not cancelled. so even if some new shows were cancelled last year, that had nothing to do with police shows. it makes it that much more likely that most shows will be cancelled this year.

Can someone explain this discrepancy for me please

same...same

Should we be writing in the first person?

OMG you guys are reading "shares" as in the both have x in common. I'm reading shares as voiced. Nonetheless, the principle doesnt kick in because we only know what happens when Kay disagrees with others more and the situation we just she her agree with M on one topic.

Why would it be implied that she agrees with Medina? The stim explicitly says nothing about her agreeing or disagreeing with Medina just that she happens to share her opinion. I got the answer correctly but it was simply just based on the fact that there was only one issue at hand and we know she will only vote if there is someone she disagrees with more (implying you would need at least a second issue). Someone please help clarify the explanation, I really don't get how some of the assumptions are implied.

The first line is really easy to gloss over but it really helped me imagine the scene. Fish abnormalities are happening IMMEDIATELY downstream to paper mills. By immediately I'm talking about feet away. Like, between outside the door and 5 feet. The proposed cause is dioxin, but the argument says it cannot be dioxin because when the mills shut down the fish recover.

So imagine right outside the mill in the water about two feet away are floating fish. There's a green chemical seeping out of the mill. You see it immediately as you look down off the mill pier. You tell the mill manager to shut down the mill because there's a green chemical seeping out of the mill immediately affecting the fish nearest to the mill. The manager shuts down the mill. Both you and the manager watch the dioxin stop seeping from the mill and flow down stream. The floating fish start moving again and recover. The manager looks over at you and says, "see, it's not the green chemical seeping out from the mill."

What would you say? Probably something like, "what do you mean, that's because the green stuff is downstream now."

I'm curious to see if you can map this question out:

AC A:
Doctrine 1 = /economic factor -> /historic event
Doctrine 1 contrapositive: historic event -> economic factor

Thus, economic factors are necessary for a historic event to occur. Which is also stated here: "The first holds that the explanation of any historical event must appeal to economic factor," and matches historic event -> economic factor

I initially got rid of A for that reason because it seemed self-evident, if my Lawgic above is right, but perhaps I was on the right track? Could I get a sanity check on this, if anyone else did it similarly?

So if there was an answer choice that said, "if interaction between students is rigid and artificial, education can never be effective" that would also a correct answer right? #help

thank u

Yeah me too :( I think something that could help is asking does this really weaken the idea that more people planted personal gardens? And then we might've thought well, not really because it's reasonable to assume that more people planting personal gardens could co-exist with more people planting community gardens.

So I think a takeaway is when you think an AC is introducing an alternative explanation, ask yourself 'could this alternative explanation actually co-exist with the explanation offered in the stim?'

And if it can co-exist with the explanation offered in the stim, then it's not really an ALTERNATIVE explanation.

2hollis cursor spotted

Is there a way to just drill starred questions

Sometimes J.Y.'s explanations are just "whaaa? Yeah, this is nonsense. Obviously the wrong answer, next."