@mic.colman In 2026 and this still helps!

Is this a good logic in approaching this question? I got it right, but I'm curious if this line of thinking is also valid. Also, "stimmy" is "stimulus" lol.

Lawgic:

1. Anarchist novels have 2 traits: subversive and violence

2. Conclusion: ban anarchist novel that do more harm than good to society

Which principle (rule) helps justify this argument? Look for an AC that helps explain why a book should be banned. ACs that talk about why they shouldn't be banned is not focusing on what the author's argument is, which is to ban anarchist novels.

D is correct. Why? B/c it basically says the stimmy in reverse: ban books -> have 2 or more traits.

If this is somehow helpful to anyone or if folks want to make suggestions to my thinking, it is welcomed!

Correct AC, E: That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project's continued public funding.

Explanation: The stimmy opens up by saying: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified.

Breakdown ^^: There is already public funding going into this research project per the bold. Some critics say that continued public funding is justified when it's indicated how the public will benefit from the project, therefore "public benefit" is a requirement.

The author rebukes this by saying: If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.

Breakdown ^^: Per the bold, the author implicitly says that the critics are wrong. Similar to if someone said, "If you were strong, you would have won your weight division at the powerlifting meet," meaning you're weak b/c you lost the competition. Also, the author makes no mention of public benefit at all. So it's literally going without saying that public benefit is not a requirement for continued funding, which is what E says.

Tiger: Not all insects are creepy. Butterflies are regularly praised for their bright and diverse colors and patterns.

Disney: Harvard is now offering free tuition to students that own one or more cats. To register for free tuition, students must upload proof of ownership or vow eternal loyalty to the underworld. Mary has free tuition at Harvard and does not have a cat. Mary must have pledged eternal loyalty to the underworld.

Cat: My plant is knocked over. The potted dirt has a hole dug into it. Rose, my darling cat, has the zoomies in the way she does after knocking over my plants. Therefore, Rose must have knocked over my plant!

How do you know to diagram it this way? I wrote mine out as two premises.

1: EG -> /LH

2: LH -> /B

/ = NOT

EG = excessively generous

LH = levelheaded

B = bold