That is one possible arrangement, but another equally valid one would be:

J: 12, G: 58, H: 63, F: 74.

This is a "must be true except" question, and since (E) doesn't have to be true, (E) is the correct answer.

Hope that helps!

S and T cannot buy cars in '93 for two different reasons -- When we combine the constraints, we get a string of relative relationships (notated off to the side of the diagram). what we know is that S gets a car in a year before R and G graduate, which has to be before T graduates, which must be befo...

One subtle distinction you want to pay attention to has to do with whether there are actually two possibilities, or if the author mistakenly assumes only two possibilities. It all has to do with the wording. Consider the following two examples: "Every day, Jack either goes to the park or to the...

here you go -- let me know if you have any questions!

MK

Tough question indeed! Here's my take, though I imagine there are other equally valid ways of looking at it: I think the third paragraph is a key. In particular, how you define "modern critics". To me, "modern critics" is parallel to "modern commentators," mentioned in ...

The key to "Identify the Disagreement" problems is NOT to read between the lines. Look for the disagreement that is most explicitly stated. The tempting wrong answers will include reasonable deductions, but remember that these questions are testing your ability to discern between the expli...

I think you may have misread the question. (B) is correct because it doesn't solve the discrepancy (it's an except q).

I think you are smart for thinking of frames. Most relative ordering games don't require frames, but this one is certainly made easier by using them.

I've attached a diagram solution. Take a look, and let me know if you have any questions!

MK

Hey Daniel, Hope the studying is going well! This is a very unusual problem, and a good question on your end -- The difference between an intermediate conclusion and an opinion that simply serves as a premise is very tough to discern -- One way to look at it is in terms of structure. An intermediate...

The argument contains a series of conditional premises that can be considered truths: If tax reduction adopted -- > library will be forced to discontinue. If library forced to discontinue -- > parents inconvenienced. We can combine this conditionals to conclude: If tax reduction adopted -- >...

Not sure if you saw my previous (now deleted) post, but it was WRONG. Sorry! Here is the correct explanation for why (D) is NOT a viable answer to #6: If H is in the third and fourth slots, we've got: 1: J _ 2: _ _ 3: H, I 4: G, H The remaining letters are K, F, and G, and they can be arranged in a ...

Hey Stacks, I'm happy to write up a solution, but I figure I'll give you one more crack at this before I do so -- What I would do is set up a simple closed board logic chain for the first three constraints, which can be diagrammed easily enough, and then write the final two constraints, which are, a...

hey josh --

this is a 3-d numbered ordering game. i've attached a diagram with the first constraint filled in -- see if u can fill in the rest!

Hey Stacks, Not sure if you caught the main reason (A) is incorrect: urban . Just based on that, you can see that (A) is irrelevant and move on to the next problem. In terms of (C)... The conclusion is a claim that the land party had success BECAUSE of a combination of two factors: (1) They addresse...

It's a tough call in terms of whether to diagram this or not -- I personally would not recommend it, but it is a very verbose argument, and, if you think diagramming will help you clarify your understanding, and won't take too long, maybe you go for it. The reason (E) is correct is because the argum...

I would not try to diagram this. I would try to understand the argument the best I could, then devote the majority of my time to the answer choices. Because this is an inference question, I am not trying to completely understand the argument before looking at the answers. Instead, my focus is on mat...

Hey Wayne, I think your process is a little different from mine, but let me explain how I would think of this question. This is an inference question. That means I need to be more focused on understanding the author's point, and less focused on finding gaps or flaws in the argument. The author's poi...

I'll just add a bit to Stacks' post-- The logic in the original argument can be understood as follows -- exercise both sides equally -> balanced muscle development - > healthy back. Some of the hardest assumption questions are ones that involve an assumption that is so automatic that it seems ...

Thanks again Stacks, for all that you contribute to the discussion! Here is my take on this problem: The initial argument has a huge gap in its reasoning. Essentially, the author makes a point that cognitive therapy is more effective because it deals with the conscious, rather than the unconscious. ...

Sorry I didn't see this question earlier -- I'll try my best to address it now. This is a "match the reasoning," question, which means that your priority, during your first read, should be to understand the author's argument, rather than to form your own opinion or to try to see its gaps. ...