for schools that aske for 2 letters, Is it ok if i send 3? thanks.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - big east boy
So like many others I did not do well on Sat. My original goal was to kill the test, and apply for early admission and maybe early decision to my dream school. However, given my performance I don't think even early admission would help me. I already signed up for December and was wondering how bad late application would hurt my chances, especially given my 3.2 gpa? Is the t14 dream dashed?
The correct answer is A, but I put down B. My reasoning was that since B stated that "Certain companies that had never.." I felt that 'never' was a parallel to the 'habitually' mentioned in the arg. A, never comments on this and simply states "when a small company begins to advertise on the internet..". After this both A and B seem to follow the same logic as the arg so I am confused as to what makes A superior. Thanks in advance for any help.
I just finished pt 53 and there were only 100 questions as opposed to the 101 q's that I have been used to seeing. Also, I believe it was the June test that also had only 100. PT 53 did not make any note of a question being removed from scoring, so what's up? Should I expect 100 or 101 q'a on Sat, every opportunity for points counts.
I am taking in October and am looking for optimism. I was just wondering if anyone out there ever got their highest score or near their highest score on the real test (as compared to pt's)? It seems that most people see a drop or hit their average, but have some of you out there just killed it on test day?
The credited answer is A. What I don't understand is how more people under 18 living in the region helps the argument that there is an increasing number of people over 65 living in the region. I put D as my choice. My reasoning for this is that since the arg states more people over 65, and gets this from percentage evidence (avg.age increased from 52-57), then for the conclusion to be valid than there would have to be more people. Otherwise a case could arise where there was a higher percentage of over65 but a lower number. Any help is appreciated.
a recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer. But no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of the apparent danger. So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.
Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnists conclusion EXCEPT:
C) The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activies it deems dangerous.
This is the right answer and I understand why, but what I don't understand is what is logically consistent about answer choice A:
The government should fund education by taxing nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear.
Thanks to all for the insight. It seems that here choice C is right because none of the others are any good. I still have a problem with the idea that something that is still less (like the 11th blood stain) is considered to weaken the arg. I feel that in a test built around precise language, a better/less questionable answer choice should have been supplied. Nothing I can do about it though; just venting. Thanks again for the help.
ten times, and in controlled circumstances, a single drop of the defendants blood was allowed to fall onto the fabric. And in all ten cases the stained area was much less than the expected 9.5cm. In fact the stained area was always between 4.5 adn 4.8 cm. I conclude that a single drop of the defendants blood stains much less than 9.5cm of the fabric.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the value of the evidence for the expert witness's conclusion?
C: In an eleventh test drop of the defendants blood, the area stained was also less than 9.5cm-this time staining 9.3cm
B: Expert witnesses have sometimes been known to fudge their data to accord with the prosecution's case.
Since B is wrong I believe that it is do to its use of "sometimes", which would not necesarily indicate this witness. However, C doesn't really appear to undermine the conclusion either. All it states is that the blood stained more, which is great, but still doesn't change the fact that the conclusion is about staining much less than 9.5. Although 9.3 is certianly more than 4.8cm it could still be considered "much less" with the definition of "much less" being undefined.
My apologies if my logic isn't clear, anyways, anyone got any ideas?