The historical examples are not irrelevant. Conclusion states "democracy (as a whole) does not promote political freedom." This conclusion includes all democracies including historical ones. A historical democracy without political freedom is relevant, but does not prove democracy does not promote political freedom. This historical example could of had some other factor going on causing oppression or maybe it was missing something important like checks and balances. The answer will establish this idea, this false dilemma.

Answer D is saying that the stimulus does not factor that democracy may not be sufficient or necessary for political freedom. In the historical example, democracy was not sufficient for political freedom, but democracy plus some other thing could have been sufficient. The necessary part refers to the second example of despotisms and oligarchies. In these examples, there was political freedom without democracy.

oooooops

I hate these questions takes so long to read through the answer choices fml

@SarahHolmes754 The consequence is the impossible scenario of giving the highest priority to all of the necessary departments.

So C is valid but irrelevant?

@ArdenAmarelo Three defendants only two lawyers, they can't get a third, someone has to share.

Stimulus is saying one defendant shares legal counsel with a codefendant (share a lawyer). Because the plaintiff orders to question each codefendant without their codefendant's lawyer and two of the codefendants share a lawyer, this court order cannot be upheld. Why? Because everyone has a right to a lawyer and the judge won't ask one of the codefendants to find their own lawyer. The plaintiff can never question the codefendants without one of the other codefendant's lawyers being present, therefore the judge is right to not grant the plaintiff's request.

I am still so confused as to why C is definitively wrong. If the physics peer review system was 100% effective why should physicians change to match Biology?

If this was a necessary assumption question I would understand why this is wrong, but this question stem is just asking to strengthen. How does C not strengthen the argument by getting rid of the possibility that the peer review system is 100% effective and therefore not conductive to progress to change?

Realized in the BR these types of questions, "most helps to support," could be looking for an additional premise to strengthen the argument. Does not always need to force the conclusion by eliminating a different hypothesis.

At least my stem background helps with these questions

I got it down to A and B, but ended up going with A because I thought "why would business owners not be considered residents?" 😭

Don't forget to use the highlight tool to help remember the necessary conditions! Helped me answer the question under the time limit 😁

so the point is to turn hypotheticals into premises, right? In order to make it easier to understand...