archangel88

bhavya, "POE" stands for "process of elimination" and it is critical in attacking all the verbal questions (and a lot of the quant questions, too).

Agree with D.

A is wrong because of incorrect pronoun reference. It refers to "a more flexible work schedule." You can post a schedule on the bulletin board. But, you can't post "a more flexible work schedule" on the bulletin board. The passive voice works okay for the final verb, but it needs to be "was assigned" rather than "is assigned."

I'll vote A, as well.

Looks like B. I must be missing something.

Thanks, khautilya. Nice post. Congratulations, once again.

Well, I don't like to argue with an OA. But, for this question, I simply cannot see any basis on which to say that E is an assumption of the stated argument. If someone can enlighten me, I'd be grateful. Actually, I just read what GMAT168 had to say about E. I guess that's a valid consideration. D still seems more relevant and a better answer, except for way in which brittleness is mentioned in the passage. Glad I'm not taking the LSAT.

C correctly uses the subjuntive mood of the verb "to be." This is appropriate in this instance as "...if a portion of the capital...invested in another form" implies a condition contrary to reality.

I think this one is probably D. It's a tough one, though. Here's my reasoning: A...gone; the argument says, basically, that if the rattles didn't break off, one could determine the snakes age from the number of segments in the rattle, which implies the snake molts on a regular basis of a certain period of time---but, it doesn't depend on that period being exactly one year in length. B...gone; scope, distinctions between different species and the appearance of the rattles of each is never even suggested. C...gone; argument does not assume this, in fact, it assumes the opposite---that the interval between moltings is constant and can form the basis of age calculations. This is would be a good answer if this were a "weaken the arguement" question. E...gone; this could be the answer in a "strengthen the argument" question if there were some additional premises in the argument, but it's not an assumption upon which this argument relies. That leaves D. If the brittleness of the tail increases with age, then regardless of how supple the rattle may be when a snake is young, if it lives long enough, a time will come when the rattle will become brittle enough to break. At that point, the "rattle-based" age determination method no longer holds true.

Looks like E to me. (1) If r0, may be negative or may be positive, depending upon the value of y; insufficient. (2) Depends on the acuity of the slope of k; insufficient. Together, we still can't say. If r=1, the x-intercept is negative. If r=50, it's positive.

Here is the thread which discusses the solution to this problem: http://216.119.67.230/forums/showthread.php?t=32863

D looks like the assumption, I'll take it. If you want the reasoning, let me know.

According to ManhattanGMAT SC Guide, "that" CAN be used to modify either people or things.

Looks like C to me. Three digit numbers greater than 700 with 2 digits equal to one another and the third not equal to the other 2: 7x7 = 10-1 = 9 7xx = 9-1 = 8 77x = 10-1 = 9 8x8 = 10-1 = 9 8xx = 10-1 = 9 88x = 10-1 = 9 9x9, 9xx, 99x = 27 Total = 80

B is MY choice. I think we need to confirm the OA. That said, here's the problem: "If X then Y." does NOT imply "If not X then not Y." Using maxgmat's "beach" analogy, "if it is sunny, I will go to the beach," does not NECESSARILY mean that "If it is not sunny I will not go to the beach." So, "If it is not sunny, I may OR may not go to the beach."

Look, I'm not arguing that Monroe's logic is the best. Frankly, I think it stinks. But, what I think about the validity of his logic is irrelevant. The stem says, "If Monroe's conclusion and the evidence upon which he bases it are correct..." That conclusion is that if he eats Tip-Top hot peppers he will get sick, not that if he doesn't eat them he will not get sick. Reworking his conclusion doesn't help in answering this question, as written, as far as I can tell. If I'm missing something (and I certainly could be), I'm open to discussion.

Well, that was a much better explanation that the one in the OG. Thanks a lot!

A worthy objective and an attainable one, I think.

I'm assuming the (A) next to Choice (D) indicates that it is the OA. At any rate, that's my choice. Here's why: We're looking for a choice which suggests destruction in a more recent time period AND in the time period with which the argument is concerned. A is gone; even if things have fallen from higher levels into the lower level, that doesn't undermine the possibility that the legendary city has been discovered. B....gone; if anything, this strengthens the argument. C....gone; that's easy enough to account for without damaging the argument that the site is, in fact, the site of this legendary siege. E....gone; strengthens rather than weakens. That leaves D. How does this weaken the argument? Well, it suggests that the destruction (by fire) of the lower level and the middle level may have occurred at the same time. Since the middle level contains pottery from a later period than the one in question, it suggests that the destruction, from whatever cause, took place during a later period, as well.

I think correct idiom is "...a result of..."

A certain musical scale has 13 notes, each having a different frequency, measured in cycles per second. In the scale, the notes are ordered by increasing frequency, and the highest frequency is twice the lowest. For each of the 12 lower frequencies, the ratio of a frequency to the next higher frequency is a fixed constant. If the lowest frequency is 440 cycles per second, then the frequency of the 7th note in the scale is how many cycles per second? A. 440*sqrt2 B. 440*sqrt(2^7) C. 440*sqrt(2^12) D. 440*12rt(2^7) E. 440*7rt(2^12) Please demonstrate your reasoning. OA to follow, for those who don't recogize this question.

For the first question, couldn't you make the argument that the probablility equals 0, since the final draw will necessarily be a white ball and the stem dictates that colors must alternate?

Your logic is sound, karmaholic.

I think D is wrong because it simply restates what was a premise of the argument to begin with, giving but one of possibly many reasons why store brands are cheaper than name brands. In other words, it doesn't give us anything we didn't already know from the stem.

bulls-eye, that is exactly right. Use "like" when drawing similarities between to dissimilar things and "such as" when listing examples of similar things.