PT 52: Why is it C and not E? I got the question correct, but I do not know what makes the correct answer C and not E.
PT 46: I am completely stumped on this LR question...
PT 52, LG #21 & PT 46, section 3, #24 Forum
-
JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: PT 52, LG #21 & PT 46, section 3, #24
Can you post the whole question?ngogirl wrote:PT 52: Why is it C and not E? I got the question correct, but I do not know what makes the correct answer C and not E.
PT 46: I am completely stumped on this LR question...
-
darkatillam2
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:40 pm
Re: PT 52, LG #21 & PT 46, section 3, #24
In regards to PT 46 - section 3 #24...
I missed this one too.
After reviewing, I basically tried to reason A is the correct answer choice because we must assume some things have to exist in some respects regardless if we stopped believing in them, because if we didn't there would be no visible distinction for the statement to be drawn upon.
Basically, we need a baseline of belief and existence in order for us to make an example of an object (money in this case) to have properties which we can consider contrary. For example, I wouldn't be able to rationally say I feel pain when I burn myself if I have no rational for what pain feels like. Answer choice A basically states that one must assume things in fact DO exist in order for us to draw a conclusion that money has a property to not exist if we stop believing in it.
I hope that makes sense.
I could be 100% off with that explanation, but that was just how I rationalized it in my head. Again, I missed that question too + my LR sections are utterly and completely destroying me. Regardless, of my poor LR performance, I think that explanation makes sense.
I missed this one too.
After reviewing, I basically tried to reason A is the correct answer choice because we must assume some things have to exist in some respects regardless if we stopped believing in them, because if we didn't there would be no visible distinction for the statement to be drawn upon.
Basically, we need a baseline of belief and existence in order for us to make an example of an object (money in this case) to have properties which we can consider contrary. For example, I wouldn't be able to rationally say I feel pain when I burn myself if I have no rational for what pain feels like. Answer choice A basically states that one must assume things in fact DO exist in order for us to draw a conclusion that money has a property to not exist if we stop believing in it.
I hope that makes sense.
I could be 100% off with that explanation, but that was just how I rationalized it in my head. Again, I missed that question too + my LR sections are utterly and completely destroying me. Regardless, of my poor LR performance, I think that explanation makes sense.
