Got this wrong, but I narrowed my answer choices down to A and D and picked A.

D is right because the stimmy switches up the frequency of the punishment from the premises to the conclusion. I remember thinking to myself that the premises were pretty solid, and I struggled to justify any of the answer choices besides A and D so I eliminated them. Was in a time crunch, so just went with A

I spent 15 minutes on my own trying to figure out the reasoning for this question I open the video and boom "yea so this is a cookie cutter question" swear ima cookie cut YOU JY (for legal purposes this is a joke)

You read too quick, I made the same mistake. With the clock ticking, I saw there were 4 variables listed, and then read "your idea has all these properties" as "your idea has all three properties"

I've got the same habit of subconsciously skimming an answer choice every now and then and it bit me in the ass here

If you paraphrase it, D makes obvious sense.

- No matter your taste in art, there is already more art out there than you could ever enjoy in your life time.

- Because of this, todays artists are wrong in thinking there art could ever make people feel more fulfilled than they otherwise could be with all the art that already exists

E kind of goes on similar lines, but skirts around the main assumption, that is what if people don't have access to the great art that already exists, but have access to new contemporary artists work?

Chose E because I figured if it was saying that they studied older kids who did ended up being near sighted then that really weakens the conclusion that near sightedness disappears with age. But that really only attacks the conclusion drawn and not the the support that the conclusion was drawn upon.

D is a better answer because it attacks the support. If the 2 later studies were flawed overall, than that means you can not properly draw a conclusion based on them at all.

man that sentence about the physicists really had me lost in the sauce

Trent says specifically "THAT asteroid is not large enough for the requisite amount of dust..." then claims that supports the conclusions that "the extinctions must have been due to not asteroid impact on earth"

If that specific asteroid not being responsible for the extinction leads to asteroids as a whole not being responsible than his argument requires the assumption that only one asteroid impacted earth

I wish these explanation videos were shorter and got to the points quicker. I got 20 questions wrong on my last PT. If I want to go over the explanations for each questions I got wrong it would take me almost 5 hours to go through these videos for each question, doesn't really seem efficient

I just thought about the circles, you can be cruel and not have bullied someone, you could have done something else to be cruel. So thats the superset. But you can not bully someone without being cruel so bullying is the subset within the superset of being cruel.

Preston I think you are the chosen one

LePreston

Agreed, I even caught myself doing it in my regular life. Was watching game of thrones and caught myself breaking the subtitles into subjects and predicates and conclusions and what not