I could use some further explanation. The way I see it, AC D rules out the piece of crucial evidence which supports the inner solar system theory (the mars rock), where as AC A, considering hypothesis 2, suggests basically nothing about the inner solar system vs earth-moon theory. If the passage or question stem stated the cataclysm theory is correct, then I could see AC A supporting the moon-earth system theory. But as it stands, I don't understand how AC A isn't supporting hypothesis 2, and in turn supporting the inner solar system theory.

Why can't routine non punishment of society's specific rules refer to a bunch of specific rules individually violated with impunity frequently enough to be collectively considered routine? i.e. if there were 100 specific rules and 100 violations with impunity, one violation per specific rule, would this not constitute routine non punishment?

Can someone help me break down the grammar for this sentence and explain why this interpretation is incorrect?

Are there any other examples of questions with prescriptive conclusions? Also, would swapping "should" with "must" change the answer? I still don't see how AC D is correct because it doesn't specifically reference a precise comparison- if observing the impacts helps students learn, but it isn't a precise comparison then why would color paper be preferable over paint?

Is it not true that, accepting AC B as true, as a high-spending student decreases their spending their anxiety will at first decrease until they go below the threshold of moderate spending and then their anxiety will begin to INCREASE? The stimulus does not specify an overall increase in anxiety or an increase in their current level of anxiety, but rather that there will be no increase at all as a student reduces spending.

Should we assume that as long as one interpretation of the answer would strengthen the argument, then we can ignore all other interpretations and move on? #help

I'm pretty convinced AC D is also Fox News. Considering the way journalism works today, I would never assume that "debate over controversial issues" refers to article corrections, fact checking, or debates between journalist and editor. It is extremely common now for "newspapers" to report false claims to stir debate among viewers/readers, thus creating more engagement.

I think you're just confusing what is sufficient and necessary. Profits increasing is a necessary condition for an increase in consumers living downtown. Decrease in traffic is a necessary condition for profits increasing. In other words, profits could increase without more consumers living downtown, but profits could not increase without a decrease in traffic.

Sorry if this is further confusing- the answer is in the indicator words. Rewatching that lesson helped clarify this for me.

"If the number of consumers living downtown increases, congestion downtown will decrease."

This being a possible answer is a good reminder that you MUST take the stimulus at face value for this type of question. Questioning any of the logic because of outside knowledge will only get you in trouble.

Kevin linked this previous lesson below to clarify: https://7sage.com/lesson/group-3-negate-sufficient/

Is it not necessary for an ideal experiment to be repeated? Wouldn't the number of times the experiment is repeated affect the strength of causality?

#help I just got to the causal argument section and am now further convinced the answer to question 2 is incorrect.

Premise: Phenomenon

Conclusion: Hypothesis

A theory is literally a hypothesis with more evidence. The scientists' conclusions are phenomena. It is weak, but it is definitely an argument.

#feedback venn diagrams (as used in past lessons) express these relationships more clearly than this convoluted 3-D bucket analogy.

Does anyone have a different explanation? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that "after a week" modifies "produce", yet it is not a necessary condition.

Example: If your application is better than most, then you will, by the spring, be accepted into college.

Would the lawgic translation be:

Application better and accepted by spring> accepted into college

Tree is the sufficient condition. If you flip the answer, it becomes more clear:

tree → /bird

contrapositive: bird → /tree

"No" is a group 4( negates/neccessary) indicator, so "bird" negated is the necessary condition and "tree" is the sufficient condition.

I was getting confused with "always" indicating a necessary condition and "every time" indicating a sufficient condition. What helped me understand is using the phrases interchangeably:

"Roses always provide a stunning display of color"

can be rewritten as:

"Every time it is a rose, it provides a stunning display of color".

I'm not sure if this is a recommended strategy, but it helped me understand the difference between the two indicators.

I may be overthinking what constitutes an argument, but why is question 1 an argument and not just a list of facts like this question from the previous lesson:

One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species. Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor. After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.

For prompts like question 2, is it always assumed that an argument must be made by the author in first person? And in that case, would the following make sense if you omitted "scientists theorize that"?

Conclusion: Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor

Premise: After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.

Wouldn't this just be a weak argument which requires the assumption that red pandas and raccoons are more genetically similar than other bears and raccoons?

3 witnesses have claimed Max was with them at the time of the crime. And if Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. Therefore, his asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty.

This further confused me. To me, it still looks like "he is not guilty" is the conclusion. Is it the placement of "therefore"? If it was written, "His asking the police to investigate, therefore, shows that he is not guilty." would the conclusion be the same?

I second this. It would be stronger if the premise was "Members of the Disney Vacation Club now have exclusive access to the new Genie+ fast pass".