@monmon need this!

@calliekoskovich I think the author overlooks a bigger issue in the requirements (although you bring a good point)

The requirement is that the initial instructions are repeated many times; however, Mesmosis instead repeats each subsequent instruction 1000 times. Well, how many times was Mesmosis initial command repeated? We have no clue.

The video did not address this as it should have, and I missed this flaw even on a blind review.

@Zanderantochow I know this is an old comment, but it might help someone!

The only thing needed in this argument is for Britta's arguments to be less reasonable than Roberts. Just as stated in the first sentence, Roberts facts were worse than Brittas.

Maybe this is the Olympic Debate Nationals (I made that up lol). These two debaters could be very talented! It's not needed that one has to be quite unreasonable, just like Roberts facts were not just lies.

The fact that Roberts ' performance was now considered just as good it MUST be true that Roberts was more reasonable (as that plays a part in scoring). If it was not true that Roberts ' argument was more reasonable, how is his performance just as good?

Wouldn't another assumption be that nothing else causes gum disease??

I read the conclusion as there will be no more gum diseases.

Well, what if gum disease can be caused by low iron?? I think this assumption distracted me from the right answer #help #pleaseeehelp

@weaveeth000 the arugment took alot out of me to understand lol

@LSATTAKER I took this in the PT; my worst section.

I accidentally read the question as a most strongly inferred which D would be a good answer for... at least from what my thought process was. World War I started the labor demand and had to continue when immigration was cut off.

However, rereading the question B makes the most sense for adding support to the author, NOT what is supported by the passage.

@BigMac it cannot be A because A-->B<-->C therefore, A<-->C is not a valid arugument.

Think of A, B, and C as buckets. U put all of A into B. Then you only put SOME B into C. Some just means more than one; you cannot guarantee that you will pick up A in the mixed bucket of A & B.

The valid argument you're thinking of is A<-->B-->C Therefore A<-->C.

This argument, you put some A into B, then if you take that mixed bucket of A & B and put it ALL into C, you will definitely get at least 1 A from that mixed "some" bucket.

@BaseerJoya1 Came here to say this! #help

I got this question correct, however, I was hesitant because I was unsure about the "binary cut". Is there a lesson that goes over binary cuts better? And how to identify them?? #help

@KristinaGo This comment helped me so much! I watched JYs and was like ok i kinda get it. After this comment, I watched Kevins, and now E feels like the clear answer. No other AC points out this decade-long change!! Appreciate you!

@mrcarrillo327 I have run into an issue where a lot of times, a word I don't know stops me from getting the right answer. Do you recommend the word journal?? Do you see improvement?

I believe I understand why A is right. Could it also be reworded like this:

"Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs are the wealthiest people in the state, owning 3M dollar houses."

Basically, everyone in the neighborhood should be of the same income class, paying the same amount. weather its higher class or lower class?? If this analogy is correct, it helps me understand the AC and could maybe help others!

@jaewill i am wondering this as well