Patrick's formal logic approach to this question is eye-opening. A quick question, how do I diagram the third sentence then? "If it were possible for protection from foreign competition to enable this country's machinery firms to grow big enough to compete successfully with foreign rivals, ten ...

I got this question wrong by choosing (A). The premise only establishes that daytime shark attacks are also possible, but that does not get to the conclusion that swimming during the day versus at night are equally dangerous, or the other way around (swimming during the day is actually more dangerou...

I got this question right and was able to rationalize it based on the logic, but it's the diagraming that got me confused. The researchers' claim is: All frequencies → Symmetrical and fractal. The expert's premise is: Symmetrical and fractal → NOT All frequencies; CP: All frequencies → NOT Symmetric...

I see ... the operative word here is "relative," while I misread the sentence as "obscuring THE impact of missionaries." In my (mis)reading, I interpreted "relative" as "respective" or "corresponding," which could be correct in other contexts. But in...

I've difficulty comprehending the first sentence in ¶4: "Because his work concentrates on the nineteenth century, McLoughlin unfortunately overlooks earlier sources of influence, such as eighteenth-century White resident traders and neighbors, thus obscuring the relative impact of the missionar...

I understand this question, but am at a loss of the context. Carl talks about medical experiment on animals. Whether such animals are healthy or diseased, such operations (surgeries) will be performed for scientific purposes. It's just that humanitarian concerns require us to alleviate pain. Then, h...

Which part of (C) is wrong? Thanks!

I can see the argument's flaw as "correlation to causation" and (B) points out the possibility of a reversed causation as a way to weaken the argument. But the only way to make sense of (B) is that some people have a disposition to produce more cortisol in the first place - the classic &qu...

I can't really make sense of (A) being the correct answer - "Speaking to a driver during a difficult driving situation significantly increases the risk of an accident, unless the speaker is providing helpful warnings." "Unless" introduces a necessary condition, but is it necessar...

The conclusion in the stimulus is the new computer control system will make the problems with accidental air bag inflation even worse, not the likelihood of the system failing gets higher. I'm struggling to equate them. Couldn't "make the problem even worse" mean "make it more complic...

It's hard for me to interpret "mid-" as right in the middle, in a geographic (location) sense. Where is the middle of the ocean, particularly since there are four big oceans? Alternatively, it could be about the depth of the ocean floor, i.e., middle level mountain ridge/range. Then, what ...

Just a quick comment about the previous post - the stimulus states "the patient was not advised to sleep more." It's still different from saying "the doctors would advise AGAINST sleeping more."

I've difficulty comprehending the sentence starting line 32, which presumably provides evidence for this question. ¶2 introduced two types of toxins: brevetoxin, which was associated with P. brevis; and PCBs, which is a synthetic pollutant. The line 32 sentence in ¶3 basically says: The bodies of th...

I eliminated (B) because it says "melding," which means combining, to make a whole, to reconcile. But according to the passage, the political ideas and artistic styles are at odds with/against each other - irreconcilable. Is that valid thinking?

Can anyone elaborate why (A) is wrong? Pat's explanation: "Too strong. 'Any.' How can we justify that?" The first sentence in the stimulus: "... FDA regulates the introduction of new therapeutic agents into the marketplace." I don't see why we can't interpret that to mean FDA reg...

I eliminated (D) because the language is too strong - "public perception of risk DOES NOT reflect actual risk (which is a 'all' statement)," whereas in the stimulus we are told the public TENDS TO interpret the degree of emphasis as indicating the degree of risk, which is a "most"...

Thanks, Pat! Just a follow-up question, what is the difference between a Main Point question and a question that asks us to find the conclusion, and how do we differentiate them? I thought they were of the same question stem. However, I've seen three sub-categories depending upon the form that the a...

This is a Most Strongly Supported question. I would normally think of using formal logic in Must Be True questions. So which part in the logic chain makes the Test Maker think it's not 100% provable and thus not use a MBT question stem, but a MSS question stem instead? Or is this a pattern, another ...

I understand the stimulus fine, until the last sentence. Before the last sentence, I identified the conclusion as "As a result, such breed-specific legislation could never effectively protect the public from vicious dogs," especially with the conclusion indicator "as a result." H...

I fully understand the double arrow of S-P ↔︎ M-S when Rules #3 and #4 are combined, which creates the two possibilities, M-S-P and P-S-M. But based on Rule #3 alone, S-P → M-S, thus M-S-P; then, its contrapositive, S-M → P-S, thus P-S-M. So there's that two possibilities already. Wouldn't Rule #4 b...