Completely related this with the last lesson and it did the trick!! What premise of the argument is unsupported and how does it support the conclusion? --> the medication part! Just as the foraging and birds visiting feeders was unsupported. So cool how everything connects

This reminds me so much of RRE questions! Everything is kind of connected.

The argument really is missing a very important connection in order for the conclusion to follow logically. The conclusion says "some books published by GP are flawed", because P1 they don't explain the difference between hot and cold composting and P2 a gardening book that recommends adding compost needs to explain at least the basics of composting. See how there's an assumption that NEEDS to be made to conclude that some books published by GP are flawed? Explaining the difference between hot and cold composting needs to be (in part or fully) the basics of composting. This is exactly what answer c says, answer e is just saying not flawed gardening book→includes an explanation of at least the basics of composting but that does not help the conclusion follow logically. It is very important to identify the conclusion because that is what you need to strengthen.

I was between a and b, and as soon as time ran out I immediately knew b was wrong and in BR I chose a. Because it is all about thinking what has to be true, using that technique helped me a ton. B says “in order to be happy one must have either money or health” but that’s not true you can make money in a way that it doesn’t sacrifice one’s health and one can have money and be happy, however a is stating that money should be acquired only if it’s acquisition doesn’t makes happiness unobtainable(doesn’t sacrifices health). Under time constraints this is for sure the best way of understanding and answering instead of writing down the logic.

Wrong answer choices explanation:

First two:

A. Nothing much wrong? Fairly easy to discard.

B. Judges should be given part? Way off!

Here, lawgic comes into play. Remember or is a group 3 negate sufficient. We take either, negate and make it sufficient, leaving us with four possible options.

1. Make equipped the sufficient.

/Equipped ->Wrong

Contrapositive: /Wrong ->Equipped

2. Make wrong the sufficient

/Wrong -> Equipped

/Equipped -> Wrong

D. It states that If Wrong->/Equipped. We never see that in the four possibilities in lawgic.

E. It states that If Equipped->/Wrong. Again, we never see that.

What helped me to understand was: Just because the assassination failed does not mean that senator Amidala gave her speech. It was just necessary for her to give her speech, but there might have been many other reasons for her not to give it, much less lead to the fact that the vote did not pass. There is not enough information to conclude that the vote did not pass because there is not enough information to know for sure that Amidala gave her speech. The condition of HER BEING ALIVE/NOT KILLED was necessary for her to give her speech (obviously) but that does not mean that she gave it.