Negation technique. Negated= It is not the case that the quality of a university education is dependent on the amount of tuition charged by the university. But the argument says "Prospective students and their parents CONCLUDE" so it is THEIR opinion it is what that group of people conclude, if the quality of education is say scientifically proven (or not) dependent on the amount of tuition or not has nothing to do with that they think and how they act based on that, it ends up being irrelevant.

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.

Moreover, is just that 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.

Yes I thought the same thing but as he said you don't have to mention all the facts, like one is enough to trigger the conclusion.

Yes that's what I thought as well!

Let me try to elaborate: This arguments starts with the conclusion, then gives premises as support. First premise, patients are unable to eliminate protein BA.. this premise is well supported explains exactly how being unable to eliminate these proteins ends up deteriorating the cognitive faculty of the brain. But, the premise on how anti-inflammatory drugs such as AA can slow the deterioration is not supported and there is a gap between that premise and how it supports the overall conclusion which is microglia's activity causes deterioration of cognitive faculties. So, answer choice B does exactly that, fills up that gap and states that AA reduces the production of immune cells in the brain, which follows logically: reduce the production of the brain immune cells (microglia), which means reduced activity, which means reduce of the cognitive deterioration.

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.

Yes, but my reasoning was that even if the number of people who drive did not increased, either way the driving time would've roughly stayed the same and the stimulus said that it decreased!

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.

Think about the circles of subset and superset and do the diagram in your mind. Consider exhibiting bravery is the big circle, and the small circle is students chosen for G. To be in the small circle you HAVE to be in the big circle, but there are many other things outside the small circle but still inside the big circle. You can exhibit bravery and be in another house, or in none.

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.