How foolish of me to assume a person knows how their job works.

I understand the lottery analogy but im having trouble applying it to this specific example. If a sports team is most likely to win then why is it not more likely to win than not? (most being more than 50%, more likely than not at least 51% compared to 49%), it just seems like in this case they should represent the same thing.

I eliminated E because I didn't think it was really an assumption and rather just restated the argument, but are all prescriptive answer choices always wrong on NA questions?

I'm so confused, how is it an assumption that "allowing for a precise comparison of that color's impact" is a positive if the beginning of that sentence is "colored paper is preferable because"? Why would a reason that something is preferable not be a positive?

Relatedly, how is saying "interfering with the pure effect of the color" is bad an assumption if the whole point of that sentence is contrasting paint to colored paper which was already stated to be preferable to paint?

Actually I think upon reread on the blind review I missed that it explicitly said that they could feed the heat they produced into the machines, however I can't delete that comment, so it is what it is.

I got the question right initially and wrong on blind review choosing B, however my reasoning was that based on the verbiage "the heat they produce" and the stimulus only saying heat into electricity and not "all types of heat into electricity". I thought perhaps the type of heat produced the plants would not be able to be converted into electricity thereby allowing none of the heat to be converted into energy.

Was I just overthinking it?

I chose C initially, and then on blind review chose E because I was thinking more about what the argument was trying to prove, which is that prehistoric Homo sapiens did not interbreed with neanderthals, not that prehistoric Homo sapiens are genetically dis-similar to neanderthals.

For example, to put this into simpler terms I thought of it as saying if im not related to my "dad" then my mom couldn't have bred with him to make me. So, C would be saying my mom is not more related to my dad than I am which does not disprove that he is my dad.

What is wrong with this analysis based on the argument?

To preface I initially chose C because it was the only one that addresses the assumption that modern and prehistoric homo-sapien DNA is similar. However, on blind review I wasn't sure that this even mattered given that the argument wants to prove interbreeding and not that prehistoric Homo sapiens were genetically different to neanderthals.

I think "it" does refer to procreation, and procreation is hindered in this case because the fish with large spots are less likely to live to maturity and therefore can't reproduce.

I haven't been using lawgic on any section because I think it takes too long and is ultimately impracticable, however if you want to incorporate it into your study you can try it on the blind review section where it is untimed.

I noticed that if you scroll away then scroll back it will show what it was paused on which is annoying but at least you can see it

#feedback For this video and many others we are unable to pause the video without the screen going blank which results in a lot of unnecessary rewinding to see things again.

#feedback when we pause the video, the screen goes blank. Is there a way to fix this issue?

I was stuck between B and E because I couldn't tell if the "and" was joining the two clauses after the most or if they were separate most claims. How do I distinguish when and should be treated as an and logically and when and should indicate a list?

I always attempt to solve the problem myself before watching and while I definitely understood what should logically follow I was confused about the use of the word however. Usually when you say however its because you are disagreeing or making an exception, was that confusing/weird to anyone else?

I think it helps to think about it like order of operations.

If you dump some of you A's into your B's

then dump all of your B bucket into your C's, then you will definitely have some A's in your C's.

But if you dump all of your A's into your B's

and then dump some of your B's into your C's, then you won't necessarily have any A's in your C's, you could, but its not guaranteed. If it is not guaranteed then it is not valid.

I think this reasoning also work for the most rule as well.

do you know what I could type in to google to find them? I've been looking and none of the examples I saw were similar to these.

I did all of them the way I was doing before, and I got the conditional relationships right, I just don't really get how this is helpful. Maybe it's just because these are simple examples but I can't figure out how/why finding a domain is necessary. I'd appreciate if someone could explain.