I think I genuinely didn't understand the stimulus for this one...

I feel like I just intuitively answered this question correctly, as opposed to understanding it under the notion of Necessary Assumptions. Could someone explain it again in those terms?

Can someone alternatively explain why B is right and D is wrong?

Thanks!

So, with a SA Qs are we just basically trying to restate the conclusion? I thought we trying to find an assumption that links the premise to the conclusion.

I am still kind of confused the difference between the "premise" and the "support."

I initially thought A, but in my blind review, I saw the appeal of D, and though still skeptical, chose D.

My thing with A though is that I assumed that because most ppl watched the program and were aware of the controversy b4 hand, they would've formed their own opinions, and wouldn't be swayed by the TV program... however, typing this out now, I see that these were a lot of assumptions being made lol, and that A has nothing to with the actual TV show itself... Thanks for coming to my TedTalk of my brain thought process I guess haha :)

Hi, I was mainly stuck between A and E.

I quickly mapped it as:

art critic ridicules --> can undermine pleasure

art critic lavish praise --> can make viewing art more pleasurable

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c: art merit can depend on creator and evaluators

I was stuck between A and E, and ended up choosing E bc it talked about general influence. Can someone provide another explanation for why its A and not E. And where you think my thinking likely went wrong?

Thank you!

For question 3, can the Lawgic translation be: 3+ --> CC ?

And can I negate that to: /CC --> /(3+) ?

Essentially saying: If class is not cancelled, then there is not more than 3 inches of snow.

And for question 5, can the Lawgic translation be: RSW --> F

And can I negate that to: /F --> /RSW

Essentially saying: If you are not famous, then the record did not sell well.

Thank you.

I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"

JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).

What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)

Can someone tell me why I'm off? Thanks :)

Hi, I am still a bit confused on how to decide what side of the arrow each clause is supposed to go on.

My inferred rule of thumb was that the clause that goes to the right of the arrow is one that comes immediately after the indicator (doesn't matter if Group 1 or Group 2). However, I see that I had some of my answers flipped when I checked them against the actual answers. With my assumed rule, I got questions 1-2 correct, but 3-5 wrong.

May someone explain how to determine which side the clause is supposed to go on. Much appreciated!