看清问题，问题是arguement基于什么前提和假设。
而不是反驳这个arguement

From Ron's explanation: this is one of the few passages on which they actually tell you, more or less explicitly, the correct answer; the primary challenge is to piece together the antecedent of the word both in the second sentence.

i.e., the second sentence of the passage says "both are required simultaneously". once you figure out what this is referring to, you've got it.

morally in the wrong when 道德上错误，没理解到位
问题在于反驳为何道德上无错

discard 抛弃

果因推理
A 联系了因果
B 利益无关
C 判断标准无关
D 政治的政策无关
E 有些是诚恳的，通篇讲的不诚恳

很巧妙的一道题，问的是：为什么不调查购买者？而非：为什么要调查经理？，选C就是考虑了后者，忽视了真正想要问的问题

thus cannot be justified.是认为“treatment更好这个结论不合情理”

结论：经济衰退不会导致教师的工作机会变少
方法： 1.学生教育免费 2. 学生：老师比例不能变得比现在大。
B：经济好的时候有很多人去上需要付费的私立，那么经济不好的时候极大可能会回来上公立，所以学生增加，老师也增加，加强结论。
A：现在的学生：老师比例比上次economic recession的时候要大。这样说明recession的时候学生有减少的可能，不能加强老师工作机会增加的结论。
C：问题和A的问题类似。
D：工资问题和基业情况无关。
E：削弱了结论。

基本概念：
增长概念：设的时候都要设原值，（增长/减少后的值-原值）/原值

请问D选项为什么最后是is不是are？

需要知道r和s的正负，t的正负没有影响。有（2）可知s的正负，有（1）可知rt的正负，但仍不知道r本身的正负。

paragraph 1: declines in amphibian populations may constitute a crisis, one that indicates humans' catastrophic effects on the environment.
paragraph 2: whether claims of crisis-level extinctions as a result of human activity are valid. discuss the possible causes of extinctions
paragraph 3: biologists' prioritization of population declines over extinctions
paragraph4; the fact that we lack extensive long-term data on amphibian populations.

坑+1： 问的是range of the amounts，不是total amounts
放进错题小本本，审清楚题目！！！

读题不仔细+1
做DS切忌想当然！！！各种形式的想当然 = =

(A) CORRECT. Apex is required to sell five casinos. If Apex doesn’t do this successfully, it will not be able to acquire the Eldorado casinos, and will not have the most casinos in the state. If it does successfully sell the 5 casinos, it must have a buyer. This answer choice implies that the only possible buyer is Moneyland. Moneyland already has 17 casinos, so if it buys five casinos from Apex, it will have 22 in total. In this scenario, Moneyland, not Apex, will have the most casinos.

(D) The argument already states that Moneyland owns 17 casinos. As long as this is fewer than 20, and as long as Moneyland does not acquire more casinos, the conclusion will hold. This answer choice does not state that Moneyland will acquire more casinos (or that Apex will be unable to acquire casinos). In fact, it makes it less likely that Moneyland will be able to acquire more casinos, since the state only allows Moneyland to operate one casino per county.

承接上一句 from gmat club It’s not fair to say that being more social is the cause of possessing greater mental skills then. This option brutalizes the reasoning in the argument.

B) Here we’re presented with an entirely separate cause as to the correlation between social interaction and a boost in mental skills. If someone is suffering from a medical condition that impacts mental sharpness and that if the illness impacts the willingness to socialize, that would artificially boost the correlation between social interaction and mental sharpness.

有个疑问：是不是得出两个解就算没法解题？因为所有数据得出的必须是一个解？

疑问脸？这个怎么算出来？