I laughed when i read this lol

OMG we are having the same problem rn. idk lmk if you figure it out, rn i am reading permutation city which is a interesting but hard to read sci fi and then making myself summarize the past few pages time to time. at the very least it has given me back the confidence that I can read LOL.

so if B said will decrease would that be the correct answer or is E even stronger.

how do we know paragraph 1 is ricks talking about rosenthals ideas. I got confused and thought it was his ideas

not sure why but the seriously in D is seriously throwing me off

I also cannot view video explanations - this started just now

How do you know when it is time/useful to do conditionals vs not - any tips?

what is B saying??

the arg is basically - bc of adrenaline frightening experiences are remembered more clearly (than non-frightening).

IG my confusion was that if we can get in a AC that non-frightening experiences can be remembered better. Then that would mean that adrenaline is not the cause of this. So I kept A.

When I read AC C i realized that we can also break the argument by saying that adrenaline != frightening. Which would be really devastating for the arg bc the whole thing is that adrenaline is the reason for frightening experiences, but if adrenaline is also present in non-frightetning experiences that would destroy the arg. Since we never fully established that adrenaline == frightening, it would weaken the most.

bruh I missed the "I Know" . completly changes it because without the I know its circular right? So A would be correct?

 A,D and E are wrong because of not talking about the subject. Is it alright to eliminate most of the times if not always if this is the case

"Interestingly, teenagers who drink large amounts of carbonated beverages containing caffeine tend to suffer more broken bones than those who do not." I got this wrong because I thought the reference to those who do not was referencing another demographic group. But I should have realized that those who do not. Indicated we are talking about the same group of people...

wait why would D make spiny cacti a sufficient condition? it is after the only if

I am confused on this one. I got it right in BR but originally chose A. After looking at the reasoning for A I can agree this would have served a motivation to pass it off as epictetus.

My argument, is that since it the discoures was well enough known, that the fact that it did recieve attention meant it could not have bee arrian.

But now re-reading I see that it never said it had lots of attention in roman society so i stand corrected :/)

Can someone explain again on how we can assume xaviers statements mean it was a risky venture. And also in other questions when it is not okay to assume things lol.

if C said knowledge of the earliest dromeosaur fossils would it be correct?

I got this right, flagged it though and then wrong in BR. "There is reason to worry" seems stronger than D's "May need different".

So when it said can benefit recall for both visual and auditory. I thought it was clear that it means that other techniques may not.

if other techniques are not as good then sometimes you may have to use one over the other.

But then writing it out I realize, we have to make a just that might not be necessarily true. The jump to say that other techniques may not is unsupported.

Vs the other AC the assumptions would be there is reason to worry and it is less effective. The sentence right before says that the consensus is that this is successful in increasing details but there is a problem with that and then goes to talk about deviating. So there is less of a jump to make therefore strongly supported

A chimp who displays feelings of affection is not the same thing as a human who has feelings of affection towards someone.

I thought the succesfully bring infrigment was a trick because it did not mean WIN against, just that they could sue but have a hard time acttually winning. Wheras there was no where in paragraph that explicitly stated that yeah social norms do just as good of a job let alone properly compensate where a legal route may. So there is where I fell victim.