Based on the above analysis, it appears "most often" should be interpreted as the "total number of car thefts" rather than "frequency of car thefts given X number of cars". Is this correct? I ask because when I see the word "often", I instinctively think of a ...

Also dissatisfied with the answers. I feel like both B and E can be disqualified for the same reason: B, requires that we know something about the other disciplines... which we don't, so that makes sense... but why couldn't that logic be applied? I mean, I think we can agree that saying that Nobel P...

Hey MLSAT, I got this answer correct by eliminating all the wrong choices, but I had a question about the stimulus. It seems to me that the first portion of this stimulus provides us with causal arguments. (i.e. Cost of living decreases will cause Increased amount of people living downtown which wi...

C: failing to notify means there may be more people than recorded which weakens the conclusion I see this point, but I saw C as a strengthener. C: If many people failed to notify they were moving in, then the census numbers could have reported lower than actual numbers, since the census doesn't kno...

Tricky one. I think while the author isn't like verbally enthused, both "detached" and "indifferent" feel like bigger stretches to me than an answer choice that is vaguely and minimally positive. But yeah, every now and then it's a hard call. My advice is to consider each word i...

Sorry, still not sold on why C is any worse than A. If someone implicitly accepted a hypothesis, how exactly would that look different from being non-committed to it? I get that curiosity is redundant, but I'm failing to see why "noncommittal" is wrong. The author was very neutral and disp...

Sorry, what is wrong with Answer C again? I understand B, but would the scenario posited in C refute the idea that 50 weeks is enough? If I had disease X, began treatment, and during the 50 week recovery week contracted disease Y, wouldn't that prolong the recovery process beyond 50 weeks and also r...

Was hoping to get some feedback on my thought process: The flaw that actually stood out to me was that "inhabiting only small niches in geographic isolated areas..." is not necessary to becoming threatened, and, as such, its absence isn't sufficient grounds to guarantee not being threatene...

Reading this question really hurts my head. OK, so it appear that the tangent about Lipoprotein is a gigantic distraction designed to make someone pick B, which seems to be a trap answer. If we ere to simply remove all of the sentences with Lipoprotein, then this would be a really easy question. How...

I'm probably overthinking this, but I've gone through the above analysis and I'm still at a 50-50 split between B and E. First, I agree that E does require an additional premise/leap-- that there is some connection between access to the candidates and positive/negative coverage of those candidates. ...

A couple of more questions: 1) Just confirming: I marked C as wrong because there never was a single contention that humans were from either X or Y; rather there were two separate arguments: one for X, one for Y. Is this correct? 2) According to previous posts, it appears another reason why C is wro...

Just wanted to point something out... I had a similar situation as the above poster-- chose "B" and it was incorrectly marked "Wrong" on the Navigator. However, I, Just for the sake of seeing what my "real score" would look like, changed the answer to "C", whi...

How does S1 support S2 again? Is "turbulent waters moving underneath" the support for "this photographic evidence means warm sea"? The way I abstracted was this S1: "photos show turbulent waters" (i.e. phenomena X exists) S2: "photos indicate warm sea" (phenom...

I just wanted to bump this thread as I had the exact same analysis of answer E as the above poster-- that "the probability of maintaining good health IS increased by avoiding dairy foods" sounds like a definite, conclusive statement on what will necessarily happen. What else is wrong with ...

(C) does discuss the closeness of the actors to the events being depicted but is about the ease with which the actors were able to develop actos . It shouldn't be about the ease of the actors to develop the actos but rather the ease with which the audience can relate to the events being depicted, b...

Is there a hard and fast rule re: in what orders the variables should be listed down the Logic Chain? The ordering on the diagram works great but it doesn't seem like something that would be intuitive at the time of the game, as they aren't listed in order of being introduced in the stimulus, nor by...

Did not notice that. Very helpful. Thanks!

"Records from 1850 to 1900 show..." I get the correlation vs. causation detail that determines why C is wrong and A is right, but I couldn't help but notice that A refers to the above as a "claimed correlation" and C, while incorrect for obvious reasons, does refer to the above a...

Just wanted to bounce off a thought I had on why the logic gap wasn't obvious. I initially missed the gap and in 20-20 hindsight it does make total sense that satisfying of an appetite does not necessarily entail expectations (per the first post). However, something that tripped me up was that the w...

Was hoping for some quick clarification on why exactly answer B is wrong here. B initially seemed tempting in that the argument DOES show that an explanation cannot account for everyone (inc. doctors), but is B wrong because it's basically a "straw man" in the sense that it entails the aut...