I'm still not sure why we eliminate D. If we negate it (warblers share their feeing areas with other bird, which DO eat the same foods as warblers), wouldn't that weaken the author's conclusion, meaning that D is the correct answer? The only reason I can think to eliminate it is because we don't kno...

Embarrassingly enough I just spent an hour on this question and I finally understood it. Premise: Methods + effort -> mastery ~Mastery -> ~methods or ~effort Conclusion: ~Mastery -> ~methods To guarantee that ~mastery -> ~methods, we need to also show that ~effort -> ~methods, since i...

I got this question right but I'm trying to understand why the other answer choices are wrong. I didn't pick D because I didn't really know what it was doing and I saw that E mentioned the new term from the conclusion. Can anyone explain why D is not necessary? Negated it says that competition is no...

Hi! I'm still not understanding why would should eliminate ( C) . It's eliminating an alternate cause, so it's eliminating the second possibility (that a meteoroid hit earth). How is that not helping in strengthening the conclusion?

So the answer is (A) because basically we need t know that documents were opened in order for the conclusion to follow. if they were opened, they served their purpose, and were thus recast for another document. since there are 40k+ seals today, there must have been 40k++ documents that were opened. ...

I was able to eliminate B, C, and E. I picked A because it would essentially mean that health education would not be education, by denying that it could be the necessary part of what education is. The stim says that propaganda is more successful than education and that health education is usually pr...

Super simple question based on the explanations for this question: How do we know anything about exceptions to violations of explicit rules?

Thanks!

Basically this entire question hinges on the word "normally?" My thinking: Rapid sinking -> water doesn't enter rapidly enough for FF. (so, rapid sinking -> no FF) no FF-> implode - - - - We know the ship didn't implode, so looking at a chain, I inferred that there was no rapid si...

that does help, thanks! i was just negating the wrong part of it. so by saying that warbles don't share their food, that either does nothing or strengthens the conclusion, which is why it's incorrect. thanks again!

I originally thought the answer was C but then I reasoned that "unhappiness" is different from "upset" (in the stimulus). Why does the equivocation not matter here? I picked D because I thought "irrelevant issues" were the taxpayers' emotions since the issue in the stim...

This might sound a bit ridiculous, but the reason why I didn't pick D was because I didn't understand what the last part of it meant. Can someone explain "phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chem industry?" I thought the answer was missing a word or something.

From my understanding, the reason B is the correct answer is because B is the conclusion that should follow from the premises. Is that more or less correct?

(B) confuses these two things 1. undermining an argument in support of a conclusion 2. showing the conclusion to be false Sometimes, when the test says "confuses 2 things," this means that the author actually did 1 of those things (incorrectly), when they should've done the other (correct...

Can someone please explain why C is wrong in more detail? Also, can E also be considered wrong because the teacher never actually ASSURES anything for a plausible, original, interesting statement? The only if makes it a necessary and so there isn't any sort of a guarantee going on right? That was m...

Just to talk aloud about (B)- that's the answer that I picked but looking back on it, i realized that we don't know if the other dishes that it didn't replace didn't also have a similar ingredient. so because we don't know if all the dishes had mushrooms, for instance, or if just the dish that the c...

I'm reading this forum so many times and breaking down this question but I still don't see how A strengthens! The conclusion that we want to strengthen is that using CA won't encourage good research. (A), i think, weakens because if scientific research isn't completed, then it's won't be able to be ...

My reasoning for E is that the stem asks us for the principle that places the least restriction. E seems to place little restriction because the directors don't have to ask for permission. They can just do with it as they want. How is that not justifying the least restrictive part of the stem?