Really helpful! Can we also get a cheat sheet about quantifiers? It will help a lot.

#help I know A is better then D. My question is, D also seems 100% ture to me, because it uses "probably". I mean, from the stimulu we can say that any two people who attempt to solve a philosophical paradox will use identical approaches or different two approaches, so "probably" is 100% supported by the stimulu.

ok, the conclusion is not about television viewers, it's about the generation.

#help

D just eliminates one possible cause, it can't lead to "must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions. " I think it's more like a strenghten support or necessary assumption, but not a SA which can guarantee the argument is valid.

I misread. I thought the conclusion is that we should ban publishing polls during the week prior to an election, so I took A as out of scope.

@Stas1973 I'm not sure if my understanding is right:

The report author says: to do anything at all --> govt funding --> regain their reputation. (We do not know what the program can do to regain their reputation, but "the program chose to focus solutions to the large number of significant problems"("this method"), so the critics assume that this method is necessary condition for regaining reputation.)

AC B: Without vision, this method doesn't work. So vision is still the core, rather than this method.

@Shucongliurose Same, many thanks

SO...pigment usage is not one of painting techniuqes?

#help

My problem with E is:

E says "Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases". But the stimulus already told us that lobsters hardly get gill diseases. Thus, I refer from E that yah human can become sicky if they eat illed lobsters, but come on, these lobsters hardly get gill disease.

JY: They(LSAC) are playing with you.. makes me laugh :)

@miriamson07627 same

@miamuoneke Same, even as a literature student, when reading "C 14 is extracted by plants..from the atmosphere", my brain was thinking "ugh plants extract C14 to atmosphere".

Takeaway: read carefully, don't skim, don't let common sense trap you.

#help

Is this a correaltion v conditional flaw? Why JY said it's not a correlation?

omg I feel stupid...

Why I think B and C strenghten the premise?

@MaxThompson I think E do strengthen, because the stimulus doesn't say provide premise indicating goverment sponsored research do this kind of investigation. " goverment sponsored research "is a new concept bringed up in the conclusion.

I thought the actual results in A was "reversed the decay of aging urbar areas" and thus A makes a contradiction.

When I saw "for only a short time", I immediately crossed out AC-B, because I thought nothing in the stim mentioned "short time" and took AC-B as out of scope stem. Anyone else thinking like me? Don't know how to avoid this kind of faut next time. Help please.

@jacobslarson77239 same

Why "the first life" refers to "these bacteria"...

Well, it's a NA question?

It's like strawman?

pre / inter conclusion: 90% of human brain serves no purpose

-pre: many people with sig brain damage show no adverse effect

con: when humans begin to tap into the tremendous source of creativity and innovation that many problems that seem insurmountable today will be within our ability to solve

Flaw 1: serves no purpose = tremendous source of creativity and innovation

Flaw 2: serves no purpose = unused (what if we just don't use the brain with purpose(means we don't know), but the brain actually does something?). That's why I choose C.

@wasabiinyoureyessame!

@adwaitghotikar151 Same, still confused