#help

I don't get it.. How come the last paragraph related to the other paragraphs?

#13 For answer C, I don't think the "proposal" should be considered as a reference to the book itself but the innovative view Haraway expressed in her book. Because in line 21, it actually used the word "proposed". The rest part of paragraph 2 is about the "content of the proposal".

And the first sentence for paragraph 3, it shows in this paragraph it gonna talk about "the style of the proposal".

Because Haraway stated she thought the old view was not viable(in paragraph 2), and she "proposed" a new approach. This could be considered as a "reform".

When you find a 4 stars passage and you got them all right and you are very happy about this, then you heard JY said this is a very easy passage and you should got them all right.

10. I eliminated D and E at first, left A, B and C. A and B are something explicitly stated in the passage. If A, why not B? Same, if B, why not A? And I also noticed the question stem, it used"inferred", that's enough for me to eliminate A and B.

#12 could be handled easily if you put your attention on the word "proof". It's not introducing anything or helping anything. It just reflects things already there.

Is the critic aiming at obstacle 1? Or at the whole solution? I think the solution doesn't necessary include write things down. Because of this, I made question 12 wrong. #help (Added by Admin)

#help

I found something else. But I am not sure this is also a subtle flaw.

Why Formula found in Blizzard = Blizzard? And why Policies committed by Gomez= Gomez? Could other toothpaste use this formula too? Could other candidates apply those policies too?

This is why I eliminated A. Because in the first sentence it says "Gomez's policies would be best". If we take that into the argument, the argument should say"the formula of Blizzard toothpaste is the best way". I don't know if it counts.

The argument is saying this work is not one of Larocque's because L never used orpiment. B is trying to say that this work might be one of Larocque's because it's unsigned and L never signed. Attacking from another point doesn't make the original point any weaker.

I really like Toni Morrison's Sula. It's a great book.

I couldn't figure this q out because I forgot "either or" could be both.

Who wrote answer A is a devil.

Hope I understand it right.

For purpose A, teachers should use tool B not tool C. Why? Because tool B will help them to achieve purpose A.

Argument: For purpose A, teachers should use tool B, not tool C. Here is tool B's advantage. Here are some of tool C's disadvantages.

What we need: Tool B's advantage help teachers achieve purpose A.

Answer A: Tool B doesn't have tool C's disadvantages (different textures may affect the color itself). Do we need this to be true? Nope. Tool B can be better than tool C even if it has C's disadvantages too. Tool B is better than C only because it has its own advantage (use the same color repeatedly).

if i can be a panda who cares LS anyway

#help

So can we say the context here is completely useless? Can we ignore this part of the argument?

#help

Will D help solving the difference if I change it to :

People 65 or younger are more likely to fall below government poverty standards than are people over 65.

#help

Can this be mapped as LN‑m→PC+ GDF? If it can't be, what's the difference between this and how JY did in the video? Why they have to be separated? Thanks!

If we want to weaken this argument, we have to find a reason for shouldn't try a new marketing campaign. It means we have to find something about the new marketing campaign is bad. D directly says the new marketing campaign is bad, which is what we are looking for. But A is something we are assuming it's gonna lose and its losses are bad.

Ok i see why B is incorrect... I misread the word"correctly" as "more likely to be true". The word correctly is the comment from our author. But at that time, they don't know which one is correct. However, at that time, C's theory is superior, because it's simpler.

Premises: The only purpose of this disclaimer is to provide legal protection. However, if this company suggest its clients to do illegal things then this disclaimer offer no legal protection.

Conclusion: So this disclaimer serves no purpose.

This conclusion is basically saying that suggesting its clients to do illegal things is the only situation for this disclaimer being void. But who says that? This is the gap we need to fill in. AC A makes this conclusion solid.

Besides the false dichotomy, C is wrong also because there's no chance for any restaurant could satisfy J,K and M. And they want to go out for dinner TOGETHER. But in the argument, there's still chances for those diseases to kill those species all at once. And in AC B, since we don't know what these two people exactly can do, so there's still chance for them to fix the problem without any outside help.

I chose B because I mistakenly thought it expressed"usually change"as "can change".

I couldn't understand this question after several times of reading. I thought these are three independent sentences cause I couldn't see the relationship between them. I couldn't see the different expressions are actually the same thing. 🙁

I chose B because I was trying to find "the other reasons". However, this argument never said cars without air bags are safer because of lacking of air bags.

The point is generally in Waller's conclusion. Generally be accepted means being accepted by most of people but not everyone.

this one reminds me of pt65 s4 Q23