Ok so I went way to in depth with this and tried to make the object clause into S/P and found it very hard after watching I realized I misunderstood the goal of the exercise but I did found out how relevant referential are and heres how:

Q3: Fans of the movie argue that it will have a significant impact on the perspectives of many viewers.

S = Fans

P = Argue

OS - it will (it as in the movie will)

OP - have a significant impact on the perspectives ( perspectives as in the viewers)

Hope this helps someone -- without being able to see referents this would make 0 sense.

For Q3 what would be the subject and predicate. I am trying to get in the habit of doing it for every question I see but I'm stumped here can anyone help me?

In this skill builder I was also trying to assess the merit and relative strength of the arguments. Did anyone else find that the bulk of these arguments are weak (excluding Q1) and have tons of room for assumption.

#Feedback this is the first time on MSS questions that I have been able to work thought the answer by myself and understand why my answer is correct and this made me feel really accomplished while this has been a long and hard journey I am really happy to see if start to finally pay off :)

Thanks 7 Sage!

Here is what I am finding a good way to see it for those of you who are unclear:

If i said many students cheated on the test that could only mean 6/20 students which is still a lot in proportion of students who would cheat on any given test. On the contrary if I said most students cheated on the test then that must mean 11/20 cheated 

0/3 currently wanting to cry in a dark room

Did anyone else treat this a bit more like a parallel match to weed out wrong answers? When ACs are this long, I try to figure out the form first, and from there you’re basically left with only B and D. D strengthens the argument by saying the predators going away doesn’t impact the rest of the population, while B says the predators going away does impact the population. By treating this as a principle match I was able to eliminate A, C, and E as IRV. Let me know if anyone had a similar process.

I know this is not helpful but I am finding this extremely difficult. I watch the explanation after and it all makes sense but when I do it alone there is still a disconnect that I am still finding extremely discouraging

#Help: To me, it seems easy to eliminate A and B because being easy to capture does not explain or resolve why beaks would shrink. It feels like an obscure, illogical reason to assume something would physically shrink due to one niche factor that does not threaten the species as a whole.

My process looked like this:

Two populations of birds were tracked:

1. Wild population → went down

2. Captive population → not affected

• We need to explain why the wild birds’ beaks got smaller but the captive birds’ beaks did not.

  A) Why would this explain anything? Being easy to capture does not explain why beak size would decrease.

  B) Same issue as A. Why would we care about how easy or hard they are to capture? That does not connect to beak reduction.

  C) This seems possible. If a certain beak size was favored in the wild, they would begin to adapt. The captive birds did not need to hunt or change, while the wild birds did.

  D) This does not resolve the issue and does not address the other side.

  E) Ok cool and what would that do to resolve/.explain why they changed in size

To me, this seems like the most logical way to approach the question. Did others have a different experience?