Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
ChiTownGuy
About
- Banned
- Username
- ChiTownGuy
- Joined
- Visits
- 481
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
@Mr.lopez You've been asked about the email several times now and have failed to provide any evidence of your claims. You could easily just copy and paste the specific clause of whatever letter or email that you received indicating that this change …
-
Yeah it just seem like it would be counterintuitive and counter productive on 2 fronts. First is that these people that get the extra time, some of them have conditions like add that make it difficult for them to work for extended period and that ar…
-
Thanks!!
-
Wow ok that's makes more sense than what I was thinking ha! Thanks
-
Yea, the correct choice is A. This has to be one of the most convoluted/complex stimuli I've ever seen.
-
Yeah I definitely see the distinction now!! Thanks!! I think pointing out that B could be true vs. E must be true really clarified it for me.
-
I guess where I'm struggling with E is that I feel like it's not strictly supported because it talks about adults only, and from the stimulus, it says that everyone sometimes acts in ways that they shouldn't be held responsible for. So like I mentio…
-
My thing about C, even though it jumped out at me at first was that no where in the stimulus does it say that the major engine repairs were needed "to keep the car in operation". Which is why I then chose D, because it's like if the engine on the 70…
-
[Admin Edit] Not laughing at this recommendation. Please review TOS.
-
When you say explanations, are you going to be providing the logical reasoning explanations for the older (1-17) tests?
-
Also both powerscore and kaplan suggest that "violation of this precept) means that they are completing a sufficient condition without comepleting a necessary condition. BUt i don't see how that's possible given the correct answer choice. TO do that…
-
The original statement is a conditional, when negated yields /u then /f or /i. The lesson you referenced is for negating intersection statements (some/most/all). Some one else suggested that the sentence "violation of this precept (i and f then u) …
-
The answer choice to this question seems to me like it is the invalid argument form #2
-
Actually that explanation , upon further thought still doesn't make sense to me. If the conditional says IF F + I, then U. And the architects are in violation of that precept, and violation means that they have done the sufficient without doing the …
-
That actually makes sense to me, thanks!!
-
Yeah I'm still confused. The answer to this question to me reads like a sufficient assumption that is supplied in order to make the conclusion follow logically, not (as the question stipulates) a conclusion that follows logically from the premises.
-
I thought the answer was reached along the same lines as you have explained above too originally, then I realized that this is a must be true inference question, and so you the way you have tried to explain it, and the way I was also originally thin…