For those of you struggling. I looked at what the attorney was actually saying--not what he implied or intended to infer.

" has a violent character"

"Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her."

"Smith never refuted this testimony"

AC:

A-- This isn't what's being coveyed.

B-- Maybe...but unreliable is a stretch

C-- Exactly. Shes attacking his character because he didn't deny it.

D-- "neither"-- irrelevant

E-- irrelevant generalized statement

S-A questions always take the longs to figure out. DOnt they know I only got 1.25 to answer it dayem

By the skin of my teeth I got this right-- it was down to A, D, and E.

had to read it 4 times to understand wtf stim was saying

"must" in A and D should have caught my attention. Musts are usually said in the stim. That would ruled em out

This one was a close one for me, but I still go it. For those struggling--here's my thought process:

My own Bkdown Stim:

Bees = Excell P = Abund. F&V.

BeeHive = Bees

Bee Keeping = Economical {only if- G use HG Honey}

Thus, G no use HG Honey = no BeeHive = no Excell P

------

For Q-Type, you should always be sum what they are asking according to the stim. Usually its always regarding the conclusion made--rather than the prem. Especially if its not obvious, I would bet on the conclusion. Makes it easier:

Why Authors opinion of gardener with no use of HG Honey wont have excellent polination.

No HG Honey use = No Excell P

------

A: we are not really talking about advantages/benefits of beekeeping/beehives as a whole.

B: is referencing this [ Bees = Excell P = Abund. F&V.]-- saying he confused excellent pollination with bees. Wrong. We aren't taking about this--there is no confusion on the conclusion regarding this statement. B->A

C: This is referencing the second portion of the same premise that B is referencing. Wrong again. C->A

D: Correct. Author failed to recognize that although beehives may ensure bees living around the area, it doesn't make it that NO BEEs will be there. That's limiting scope of Yes Bees or No Bees. There's a third option.

E: There is no causal claim made, rather these are relative conditional statements.

For those who are struggling--here my thought process.

Stim: ppl reduce fat intake & few cal -> use fat sub like N5. Opinion: N5 useless. Why? Ppl use N5 consume food and are still hungry--> eat more what end up making up the cal the dodged in the first place.

Q-stem: The authors opinion isn't good bc it fails to consider...

A: Irrelevant. We aren't talking about other foods. We are addressing N5 claim.

B: Irrelevant, this is closer to the general aim concerning N5 but still out of scope.

C: (this almost got me)-- But we have a conditional in the first part. We are trying to focus on ppl who do use N5 for the caloric intake.

D: (this almost got me)--but this is actually a generalize statement. Comparing people who do and who don't. We don't care what other people are doing. More so makes this irrelevant now that I think about it more.

E: (correct)--I had to resumarize this in my head because for some reason it didn't compute correctly.

I read it as: total fat eaten--even w/N5 stays low even when cal doesnt.

This actually addresses the first statement of the stim--which the author based his opinion on.

Stim: ppl reduce fat intake & few cal -> use fat sub like N5. Opinion: N5 useless.

So to sum---the authors opinions was not good because although it doesn't exactly lower cal intake it doesn't make the utilization of fat less important.

If you think about it. This is saying someone can eat twice the amount of food with the same cal intake and fat of one serving. Isn't that a win?

POE got me A and E. A had to be wrong because this looks like B->A. We don't care about the fossils. We care about the biomarkers.

Ha C almost got me. This question thought it was slick--I hate banking type stimulus's

Just for mental reminders for those who are struggling. For weakening questions. You don't always need answer that punches a large hole in the arguments face. Some times on a list of supporting choices--the one that offers a light punch or even a throw away statement in comparison to a strength is the right answer.

And in this case.... E was a slight punch/throw away statement.

C was the last soldier standing only because to me it was irrelevant. It neither strengthened nor weakened enough to do damage.

Was caught between B and D--and "dull performances" made me realize it was a target hit (Weaken). Thank you POE!

This crap made no sense. I'm not going to even entertain it

Everything in me told me to pick e and I didn't want to second guess so I left the OG answer ughh

I can see many are getting hung up on this. Maybe I can shed some light.

For me--as I read stim, I am summarizing it to myself as I go along.

Stim: vaccine create immunity by giving piece of disease to expose body to produce antibodies. Create successful vacc = doc must isolate that piece of disease. Sum: Hep E has a piece isolate = doc thinks they can make vacc => permanent immunity.

First--we don't care if this is true or not. So don't rely on outside info that you may or may not know. This argument is valid and sound. Goal is to weak. SO--what if its not the case that the vacc the docs think they will make will work? Why wouldn't it work? We obviouly need an option that tells us either why it wouldn't work or why the method isn't good.

A-- This immediately jumps out as why it wouldn't work. Clearly those who already been exposed (as the vacc would) didn't work bc they still got Hep E. This blows the conclusion up.

B-- This is a weak support. More so irrelevant because its talking about animals. Too out of the scope.

C-- This would be a slight strengthen.

D-- This is irrelevant. Talking about exposure and scope of infection. Not what we are looking for.

E---This is a claim that supports maybe the claim. As it sort of adds credibility that the vacc may work.

this is the 4th question that I was down to two left---and I second guessed myself---GOD WHY

I see a lot of people hung up on B--here's why I ruled it out and chose C.

Philosophers: happiness -- "satisfaction" & "potential"

Deirdre: happiness -- "enjoying moment"

the use of happiness changes to reflect different meaning across the entire argument. Even offers a clue in the conclusion "presemism" as to reflect he's actually talking about the emotion relative to experience--not a drive of achievement.

Although B is a good choice if the meaning stayed consistent -- for this issue, it actually is under the impression that we are comparing achievement to experience--despite the conclusion implying otherwise.

Not sure if that helps!

Had it right the first time

I Hate how these flaw reasonings are written

I ALMOST HAD IT! Dayem.

Okay if your like me and was caught between C and E--- listen up I gotchu.

It couldn't be D because the stimulus says "most of the people" & "80% of people surveyed". E is literally saying "people surveyed were ALL young students". Hello--thats clearly not "MOST" people. Its good to remember (which I forgot) in studies age, group size, and diets often trip people up.

C -- won by default. This is an except question. A, B, and D are clearly weakening support. If you having a hard time understanding why D wasant a good option because its a survey flaw problem. Literally one of the 5 biases (that being biased questions) meaning it weakens the arg.

C is talking about who conducted the research. not about the information we received. Had there been a better choice, this would have lost. It neither weakened or made a throw away statement.

C isn't a bad option. In terms of the spectrum its in the middle. E just happened to be right under it--making it win by default.

I am embarrassed I focused so much on this one. I selected the Lv 3-5 harder q's. This was relatively straight forwards.

B, C, and E all either were irrelevant, strengthened the arg, or were out of scope.

D almost had me. But the premise said "influence voters decisions" make me chose A-- because D directly agrees that it does. Its a low-key strengthening one.

A it is!

After rereading the stim a few times I realized "provides a service similar" is exactly why D was the only answer avaible

This was easy-- for me atleast. Hopefully I can shed some light

Stim: J benefits from planting P than A trees because: P-Trees cost less to purchase & plant + fruit early

Q-Type: Weaken

Side note: If you having trouble with LR I recommend to breakdown the Stim and Q-stem to figure out what exactly your either looking for or not looking for.

in this case--- Weaken, so we need to figure out why J actually wont benefit from planting P than A. We need a stronger arg for A-trees or than nullify the P-trees all together.

Answer Choice:

A -- This is a good answer bc it is focusing not only on A-trees like we want, but it provides incentive which is good.

B -- This hurts A-Trees and helps P-trees so its out. (Strengthens)

C -- This is a cop-out. Because it actually does nothing. It is a lame comparison trying to say--well actually neither is good or better. Which is not what we want, especially after a good choice like A earlier

D-- This was a close second for me, but lost because when I re-read it I realized that although this highlights good for A-T it didnt offer a better reason to choose A-T. Even if this was true, why would she still not plant A-T's and have both A and P for the health benefits.

E --This was just a throw away one for me. I not focused on P-T overall production. Too generalized we are talking about a farmers preference for their produce.

With that in mind--- I chose A! Best of Luck!

you used the loophole LR book huh?

Did you read the loophole book?