Im not going to lie this one got me because I was thinking "part-to-whole" then C went whole to part...

One thing I found helpful was in the answer choices, reading 'premises' first, then jumping back up to the conclusion. Made it much easier to bring the problem to the surface.

I got an RRE vibe from this AHAHAH

This question made me think of the example where we talked about selling the Bike...

Fraud: Sell something defective + Know it's defective + Advertise as good.

Billy sold a bike to Jim. Billy did not know much about the bike and said it was solid. Jim later found out that the brakes were defective. Therefore, Billy committed fraud.

If we took out the part about Billy not knowing much about the bike... would he then be committing fraud? We don't know. We cannot think for Billy; thankfully, in this question, they state he did not know much about the bike.

I ended up getting it right, just took me a little longer, because it sorta felt like a sub-conclusion

JY "Let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and die" with a dirty bob

Lmfao that was a roller coaster.. Quick question for anyone.. before going into the answer choices, I thought a Necessary assumption could've been that those incentives did not include native grasses; would that be wrong? Or is that just an additional assumption?

Im not gonna lie "only if" got me messed up right now.. I thought it was a group 2 indicator meaning that the necessary condition follows afterwards, but when going through the different answer choices, it says that it indicates sufficient after and necessary before?

Cheers! I also made that connection! I knew there was something with the grammar, and I went back to read the question again after I noticed the exact same thing.

I ended up getting this question right, but I'm glad im not the only person who was like 'tf is deleterious'.... however it just assumed it meant "delete" progress

My first thought when going through A) and D) was simply that neither one addressed a concern with the argument itself. We are talking about the long term not being warranted. Which implies, in my mind, that the short term still is. So in A), we don't touch on why the short term would still be needed, and the long term is not. In D), we again don't touch on that at all; if anything, D just says both should be wrong. This doesn't tell us why it is that the long term is unwarranted and the short term still is.

P.S. if my reasoning is dumb please tell me so I can try to fix it AHAHA

Alright, I may be insane, but isn't the fear of job loss social inertia? I was going to pick A, but I didn't because of that...

@jasonlan Needed this after getting slapped with RRE

Whelp RRE has officially taken the wind from my sails

gonna be honest, you got me good with 'epochs'...

This may be a silly question, but would there still be a correlation? Just not a causal one?