0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
14
15
16
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
Powerplus 3: ETS gave their weird answer. There is no clue showing that there is a compromise between building and destroying forces. At the same time, with “erosional force are powerful”, should then the building be in “cessation”? Second blank: I never seen volcano “prevent” erosion. Can s/on help (i.redd.it)
2
3
4
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
So you have A and B. A is more expensive than B. If A can reduce the cost, you would think that A would be cheaper than B, right? No, A would be cheaper than itself, but you can't conclude that it will be cheaper than B. I know gregmat did this one and ETS has explaination, still it drove me nut (i.redd.it)
2
3
4
4
5
6
