The law is about the difference is a word or two

Man

Absolutely retarded

I have a difficult time understanding attitude & predicting-type questions, especially ones of emotion. How should I approach these questions?

How do we know the "good-life" is not a premise?

I focused on how direct experiences connect with intrinistic qualities since that was the conclusion's implied assumption. I asked, "how did direct experiences causally tie into intrinistic qualities?" Yet, the answer, was how extrinistic qualities are not symbols, which felt more like a concession than a piece of the argument as a whole & the conclusion.

Shi ez son

Choose C but wa

Wtf is this shit. Like what. The conclusion of the author is that attention does not correlate to higher grades. Why is that an assumption if it is proven wrong?

great minds think alike.

fools rarely differ

Fails to specify we are only taking the first sentence of the example & translating it to lawgic. I took the 1st sentence as a Suff. & the 2nd sentence as a Nec. The explanation provided here along with the last lesson is obtuse. For future students: they mean A is bird & B is migration only for the first sentence, they do not translate the other two sentences in this explanation whatsoever.

@juliagvrooman is only not a suff indicator?

'No' is a 'then' or necessary cd

'Unless' translates to 'if not' or a suff. cd

So it would translate to:

Brave -> Gryffindor

This argument would then logically follow. We were taught that unless is a suff & no is a necessary cd. How come that is no longer the case for this example?

Sometimes I doubt the obvious answer. I came to the proper conclusion by process of elimination. The Fault is an Unknown. It is a maybe. Having an answer would directly strengthen their argument.

The question doesn't ask what weakens the argument, it asks what argumentation is being used. I took this as an assumption, yet, it seems as though the answer & its explanation provide B as correct because it WEAKENS the argument. This is not what we are being asked to accomplish. E strengthens the argument, & D provides additional explanation, which are most in line with a support of argumentation.

I am not saying the answer B is wrong. I am saying the question they asked is. Unless someone can properly explain the semantics I cannot understand how they'd come to the conclusion that this is a valid question.