B is the correct answer.

The conclusion of the argument is: There have been extraterrestrial spacecrafts sighted near Earth.

Why on Earth would we believe this?

• The British government is not releasing information & brushing aside requests for UFO information

To Strenghten:

• We need to eliminate any alternative hypothesis:

  • British government is not disclosing information for another reason than

  • Infomration that British Government is hiding are about something else that isn't extraterrestrial UFO

In a SA framework, as the answer choice of this is, the answer would look like this:

• If the British government is brushing aside information reqeusts by civilian researchs, there have been extraterrestrial UFO's spotted recetnyl.

  • In other words: The only reason why the British government would not disclose information to reports is because there are extraterrestrial UFO reports.

I was so hyperfixated on proving that the government was hiding something, which is why I chose C. But that's just not what the argument is setting out to prove, the argument doesn't care if something is being hidden (maybe implicitly its assuming that), but the conclusion is setting out to prove that there have been sightings of UFO's from extraterrestrial origin because the government hasn't disclosed all the information requested. B maps out to that by saying the only reason why they would do that is because they know for sure that the UFO's are from different planets. All C does is prove that they are hiding something, but prove what the arugment is setting out to prove, that extraterrestial UFO's have been spotted.

I lowkey forget that these except questions are actually except questions half way through.

Premise 1 (in context): Laughter helps recovery

Premise 2: Tendency to laughter is correlated with recovery

Conclusion: Tendnecy to laugh causes recovery and also is more important than laughing

A: What if the correaltion found in premise 2, that the tendnecy to laugh is correlated with recovery is acutally just a product of laughing being correlated with recover. People with higher tendenc to laugh -> laugh more -> recover more

The author assumes implicitly in conclusion that tendency to laugh -> recover better and that matters more than laughing

A says: wait a second, laughing is what actually matters here, and the tendency to laugh led them to laugh more (aka the thing that actually leads to recovery)

C is correct here by doing something that I typically do not always remember on strengthenign quesitons. Its an implication of the altnerative hypothesis, and by striking it to be untrue, it makes the alternative hypothesis less likely to be true and thus our hypothesis has a higher probability of being true. If it was true that Ha was true, that tornados have actually doubled, we woudl expect to see an increase in all 3, small, medium and large. But if all of the increase in reports are small that is just so strange. Surely you can't justify saying that torandos have doubled if the only one that doubled is the small ones.

If pretty much all of the reports are small tornadoes that supports an alternative hypothesis that tornados in general have doubled, making it much more likely that something else is fishy here, that something else is going on.

That scenario is a lot easier to grasp than adding support for the conclusion. But that does make sense to me. Medium and Large tornadoes are already pretty easier to spot (in relativity to smaller tornadoes), and if it were true that we're just better at finding tornadoes than before, it makes sense that now we are finding the ones that typically went unseen or unreported, the hard ones. For ex, its likely that for medium and large tornadoes, almost all of them are reported, but lets say only 30% of small is being reported in 1950. Today, for medium and large, almost all are being reports (they stayed roughly the same), but for small its now 70 or even 80%, that increase would account for the doubling in tornadoes reporting. Tech incresing -> easier to spot tornadoes -> we can now spot tornadoes we were previously missing, that weren't already being found -> small tornado increase

Forgetting about the "always at least 10 degrees lower" just totally killed this question for me. No way I could've gotten that right without remembering that. If Charsville drops significantly at night, so does Taychester!!! This means that teh paradox, lower temp in taychester but higher expesnses in Charlesville still exists, even if Charlesville drops.

@JordanTaeunKwon Further, the author already assumes that non-7-day cycles can't cause this 7 day cycle, and thus doesn't even rule it out. The author only cares to rule out 7 day cycles, and then automatically assumes that it is nothing else that can cause this thing except humans. This furhter showcases the implicit assumption, that its nothing else, that can affect the weather pattern (namely, non-7-day patterns, which picks up on what the author failed ot rule out).

This question is a necessary assumption. We need to state the assumption that the author relies on to make this argument hold.

The author concludes that humans have caused this weather pattern over 30 years. Why can the author be so sure that humans specifically caused this? That is because the author rules out natural cycles that are also 7 days as not significant enough. This feels pretty good, well at least to me it did. But what the author is also necessarily assuming here is that it isn't anything else that causes this weather cycle, and its only the humans that causes it. Where this really shows up in this argument is that the author attempts to eliminate all other alternative hypothesis by saying that natural 7 day weather cycles aren't strong enough, but it doesn't rule out all of nature period. E does that specifically (which I missed), because I just naturally assumed the necessary assumption, that if it was nature that caused this 7 day cycle, then it must've been a 7 day cycle. I implicitly assumed that.

I thoguth D said that it overlooks the possibilty that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would NOT still enusre if not all of them did. Obviously that is the wrong interpretation and would make D correct. That's the prediction I had for hte answer, and I kind of just attached to D becasue the first 60% of the answer was exactly what I was looking for, but I missed the part where it actualyl went contrary to my prediction and what would weaken it, and actually just restated what the Farmer is concluding.

A is wrong because it would deepen the discrepency, if they underreport but still are increaseing markedly, that raises a bigger question

B is wrong because the stimulus never says that research # is calculated by an average of fishing boats. If there are more survey vessels, it would likely go up

C correct, gives reason why average # of fish for commerical fishing would go up (assumption that survey vessesl don't have access to tech)

D stated in stimulus. The fish caught all year is averaged based on time/effort

E doesn't solve anything. If assumption that htye sitll stay out there the same amount, depends mystery, if you assume they don't, deepends mystery again (no reason for commerical to increase.)

@MickeyClaffey I think your reasoning is wrong on why C is incorrect. We do care about the emotion levels, since the hypothesis is trying to measure the effect on emotion on sound. The experiment is strucutured to have 2 different levels of emotion in the 2 groups, and see if there is a difference in sound, where the only thing different is the emotion. I think that C is wrong because stating that the other group had "little" emotion doesn't differentiate it enough from the group with parents who are just stated to feel "emotion," with no quantifiers on significant emotion, mild emotion, or even little emotion (to where C would weaken it significantly).

I don't think the explanation for C is very good. I think that the reason that C is wrong personally is that C is makign the assumption that there is a level of emotion that the parents that sang in front of their infants had. Saying that the other parents (without infants), felt little emotion would have had a strengthening effect on this argumnet, if we assumed that parents with infants felt super strong emotion, fully widening that gap. But the argument just tells us that they felt emotion in general, how do we know htat little emotion is different from that? I think that gap is bigger than assuming display and feel, even though that is a gap too. D is obviously better, as it gives a causal mechanism behind the hypothesis.

D and B are wrong for similar reasons. I picked D personally, and it was the wrong answer. To me when I see evaluate questions, Its almost as if I answer the question in a way that would significantly affect the passage, and then just choose it. But evaluate questions is a 2 sided sword. Answering it one way should do one thing for the argument, but at the same time, analyzing it the other way should do the opposite, which I sometimes suggest. For D, for starters, I missed any other species, which kind of makes the subset way too large to have nay impact. Learning about smaller animals or any other type of animal isn't helpful. But I almost misread it as like goats, or sheep, or other domesticated animals. If the mortality pattterns were teh same, I thought to myself yea that would weaken the hypothesis. But on the other side, I'm not sure if saying they are different surely stregnthens the argument moreso than just saying that they weren't used for the same thing. Maybe that is slight strengthening, but its clear that A is better in strenghtening as D, when interpretted in a beneficial way, only rules out a hypothesis 1 way, and in the other way slightly, very slightly mayeb strengthens if that.

A C and E are all attractive answers. I chose A because I kind of interpreted the question as principle underlying the argument, and then kind of make it appear as what the author would agree with, what principle applies here, but thats not what the quesiton is. Its asking which principle is actually applied here, which principle is in use by the author in this stimulus, signified by the "clearly operative," being clear that this question isn't asking about what the author would agree with or which principles might have motivated her argument. A C and E all fail for this, the author's point is simply that the rationale is questionable, and Shelly, despite elimintaing racially restrictive convenants, didn't actually get rid of what was wrong with the convenants, but rather just the enforcement method. The rationale behind shelly was faulty. But the author doesn't go further than this, the argument triggers the sufficient condtion for A C and E, but the answer choices all give a call to action statement, that isn't replicated in the argumnet. The author points out the reasoning is flawed but doesn't go further in saying what should happen next. D is right here because its the only principle that actually applies here. The author points out lower courts abstaining from following precendent of shelly, and uses that as evidence. D closes the gap, and underlies the premise that actually applies here, D is almost like a NA/SA answer choice, something that is actively in use here, and the author assumes it to support her argument.

The author's purpose here is squarely the opposite of A, its purpose is to question how/why the court fails to make a distinction, not to criticize the distinction that the court made. The author is pointing out that there is no basis and there is a lack of evidence towards the court's point that state actions and individual actions are held to the standard of the 14th Amendment. In other words: The author is criticising the lack of distinction here, not criticising a questionable disctinction.

B is wrong because it attempts to rule out the alternative hypothesis that the fairy circles is caused by weather conditions, climate, or any other "harsh or prolonged droughts" by saying that, no, this grass is some of the toughest grass and wouldn't die because of that. But the only problem with that is that the alternative hypothesis that a drought or conditions caused these fairy circles already isn't that plausible; it doesn't make any sense for droughts or conditions, which presumably effect the entire grassland, to cause these circles specifically, that just isn't a realistic assumption or a realistic altnerative hypothesis. B weakly weakly strengthens by ruling out an already weak hypothesis, but A does it better by saying that these dead plants, they actually all die underground (which alligns with the mechanism that termites are already comfortable with and perform), and they didn't die becuase of any other surface reason.