@alimcg22 we don’t know anything about those that don’t have part time jobs

@EliseTucker16 Ahh yea that makes sense. Specific people should use it, but not a general recommendation.

I picked B because I forgot that we're supposed to take the premises as facts, which the premise says that lower wages leads to much lower operating costs.

@MikeRose the justification isn’t how much dirt each one picks up, but how much dirt each one leaves behind

Answer E says Jake doesn’t express an opinion, but I feel like he clearly does because his conclusion is the product should be used?

I'm having trouble understanding how you get to the point where you're looking for what makes the product unsuccessful if the conclusion mentions what it needs to be successful? How do I know I'm supposed to negate the conclusion?

@robertobolanos89750 there was no recommendation

I attempt to diagram these things but I always go all over the place compared to how simple it really is. I got it right just based on the similar structure, but I'm struggling to form a diagram of the logic.

@AndrewPerry the most simple way I understood it is, is tea actually better, or is coffee just worse? Answer C prevents the idea that coffee is actually worse the immune system, and tea is neutral.

@JacobFaubion After thinking this through, if C weren't true then tea could simply be neutral. Coffee could cause the response time to double, and if tea takes half the time then it would be at its starting point.

I got it right but only through process of elimination, but I'm still not solid on C because if you're trying to give something the argument requires...even if Coffee doubled the speed, tea would still take half that amount of time, therefore tea would still boost the immune system.

I don't know if I'm reading this wrong, but is the conclusion trying to say that tea has a positive effect and coffee is neutral? In that case it starts to make sense, but it only really talks about the effects of the tea.

@whelp This doesn't tell us anything about the movement of those armadillos. Even if she tagged every single one her conclusion would be the same.

I didn’t think A would be correct because I thought viewing the waves would conflict with the inner ear and the motion of the boat

I leaned towards B because it mentioned influential people, and this seemed like something that needed justifying. Not sure where my logic went wrong.

I got the question right, but how do you tell whether the first sentence has a purpose? It seems to be a statement that the author wants to convince you of something, but it turns out to be nothing. Is it just vibes?

I get the answer has to be the one that MOST strengthens, but I thought A was way too weak of a strengthener because just because they're older in Siberia doesn't mean that they weren't first made in NA. Thinking of this I started to think of what if there was a separation in their timelines via the bridge melting, so I picked B even though I wasn't fully confident in what it implied.

So when you write it something like this:

glass wet

--------------

medication

does the line just imply the same thing as glass wet -> medication? I feel like that makes more sense, unless there's something I'm missing. I don't understand the lines purpose.

@MMAceAttorney177 Nothing is supported to say that they would move away, but regardless based on the passage it would require their support in the first place for it to even be built. There is also nothing to indicate what would change their support for construction near the bodies of water.

I didn't consider C because since the author only referred to organic factors such as a deficiency in a compound in the brain, I figured this would eliminate cultural factors as a consideration. I'm still not sure if cultural factors are considered an organic factor as I assumed it referred to more concrete evidenced factors?

@DistinctZealousHealth The competition doesn't matter in this case because the stimulus says that this specific family outperformed their previous records. Even if more competitors entered the wool space, the family still increased their market share.

Im a bit confused on how D is a necessary assumption when the premise gives no indication that trees are planted where grass is? Don’t NA have to keep the argument alive? Because if it’s not D it could still be others options.

@christinagomez7738165 the assumption goes away because the prompt said the answer is true