I clocked that it was treating legal obligation like any obligation but I did not see the sufficiency mistake, I thought it was like setting up a bi conditional situation in the support but I now see how the "it follows that" is leading us to an intermediate conclusion where they make the sufficiency-necessity mistake

I don't understand why it's E can someone help? Like I don't feel as if Winston and Sanjay are saying those who get Noble Prizes are not deserving/receiving one is an inaccurate indictor of the scientists contribution? It feels like they are saying that it has the ability to cover more ground but it doesn't, which is why I picked B

I missed the "no dream has been related" part, but how can we say that they believe it is coherent and has order

I think whats tough about this one is I assumed that Sandra was deadass responding to Taylor so she was responding about the particular instance that Taylor is talking about.. and I feel like that is a fair assumption? I don't really get why it is not B someone helpppp

BOOF AHH QUESTION

What helped me with this one is that because the argument is using an analogy, similar support needs to be used. Hence B is similar to the maternity room staff being more likely to remember

@tar C is treating it as if the stimulus is a claim about what CAUSED the ice melting, when in reality the conclusion of the stimulus is ice melted. The stimulus does not dive into "causes" of said ice melting but C is basically saying that in a really convoluted way. It might seem like the author has given us some causes at the end but the "could have" is just boof

@emill1517 Weakening questions require powerful answers so we can't just dismiss something because its bringing something new to the table. The way that a weakening question works is that it offers an alternative explanation or it breaks an assumption in the argument. E in this case is offering an alternate explanation, that there was a spike in injuries towards the end of the factories existence, so that is why it is weakening the argument.

@alexfbaird no bc sometimes it really is that srs

bad question

A felt right to me because I was like okay ranches have lots of cattle so then it will be cheaper but I guess we do not know how much cattle they have + what come down appreciably means. In that same breath I do think B is a boof answer too

the comparable number of items just flew over my head like crazy! did not see that it's like it wasn't there when i read the stimulus lol

@MINNIE Okay IG i get it some more now and it has to dowith the conclusion being dont consume it PERIOD and not dont consume it for strength purposes, I did get this one in the BR but annoying asl

This so boof please, it literally creates a subset of athletes when it says "who need to improve their muscular strength," like yeah no shi the engineered foods could be useful in for other things but the stimulus seems to only gaf about the people focused on muscular strength

The assumption in this question was REALLY hard for me to spot and I did not get until BR. But basically in the conclusion the author assumes that we will not need to get more cows to keep up with the demand for meat and milk if the diets become good quality. Bc if you do need to get more cows you are not really gonna "keep the methane production in check"

Just vote

Me when I get the 5's right but the 3's wrong TF is this

Can't believe I made it here

I hate flaw questions.

@Mercury What I did!! I did 3 more drills and got 4/5 on the first two and then just got a 5/5 today. So happy but I can't lie making them into Lawgic is making me way overtime but for now I'll take it

Took 5 minutes and my soul but I got it right

HELP i got 4 5/5 questions and 1 4/5 question and did SO BAD the worst ive ever done this is crazy..

@NicholasDylewski my exact questio

I suck at these

me and analogy questions are not friends lol