I chose B and I know that the answer is too strong, but still prefer it than A. Argument states: the advertisers can afford the offer because increased sales targeting consumers who browse internet and provided such data to the advertisers. So apply a negation, I could say that if no data provided d...

Hi Patrick, just wondering for E) if “usually” is replaced by “at least”, will that be a correct answer?

I’m having trouble with this question and I approach it differently. I chose A because “a few” limited the number of the articles that scholars might cite overlappingly. Whereas for E, I’m thinking that the articles with most highly regarded views might be more than a few, therefore hard to explain ...

Would D be a better answer if it addresses “ new food” instead of “different types of food”?

Thank you Patrick! I think at the time I did this problem I missed key information in the last sentence of the argument : “INCREASED sales that result from this PRECISE TARGETING OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS”. This information really constrained the situation and is shown in answer choice A: at least som...

This question threw me off mainly because of the answer choices are not strictly designed. A) why a 3-year-ago law would have impact on annual decline of fatality for 5 years? B) why a major road repair that just started 5 years ago would have impact for annual fatality decline for 5 years? Wow! If ...

Thanks a lot Patrick! I’ll have to be more careful towards those details!

I still cannot wrap up my head over why C is better than B. I understand that B is wrong because the extrapolation from animal to human beings, but isn’t it true that this has been the case how scientists been doing to make inferences from animal experiments to study possible solutions for human bei...

I have same problem with C and E:

With C: we are assuming the increase of the number of the tornados are those small sized ones;

With E: I’m assuming the increase is from those Geographic regions where tornados are non-prevalent.

Is there anything that has been missed?

I really don’t know how to infer from line 17-22 that : “Jury doesn’t have sufficient evidence to nullify a case “ to say answer E: “jury doesn’t know all reasons why a case was brought to court”. It seems they are talking about totally different things: the passage is about evidence to prove that t...

There are places in passage B talk about the benefits of invasive species: line 41-43, for example says “if you add many new species and lose few or nonnative species, the overall species count goes up.” Line 34 also gives me this impression that the author of passage B think invasive species brings...

Just wondering if this is possible justification for C):

The state of affairs: improved health

Caused two or more different effects:

1) having medical books

2) less visiting to doctors

Will that work?