e would be if he just said exceptions. It seems like he doesnt make the needed distinction c requires no jump e does

Very Mean. A is tempting because you immediately think of the idea that the dogs could have both come from somewhere else. A insinuates that but is too strong and not specific enough.

The disconnext for E is subtle. This is very hard so they must have done boat. Well what if boat was harder.

take a second in slow down. We narrowed it down to A and D. I discounted A initally because it felt like a strengthener and so E had to be right. Wrong.

E infers that most people recover without treatment so than most OMS people wouldnt be getting treatment. But A is ever worse because in the cases where the treatment is applied it could be the right one. IN cases of A it would be even more dangerous

messed this one up because i missed excessive thats a key word.

A is the classic NA. Cookie cutter. of x is better at doing this any Y. So x is better over all. We we need to make sure x isnt worse other ways. A does that.

the hardest stims do this and it make it world salady.

They say x does this. But x is wrong. Because V.

We need to prove that V disproves x.

Here we have x: An approach to for real things in science is to designate as real the most poerful explanatory theroeis.

This is wrong.

Why?

Because most theories posit stuff on theoretical grounds.

So we need the fact that most theories are theoretical to show that the idea that all and only scientific theories with explanatory powers should be designated as true is false.

Do and deserve are two separate ideas. duh

got this silly quesiton wrong; Diagram the conclusion:

Owl will make home -> Spiny Cacti

We need cacti as nesc condition not a sufficient.

You can also see that b and d are the same answer so they both cant be right

I always panic with wordy must be trues at the end of a section. Panicked here when i easily and quickly got it in BR. I think taking a second to write the ideas down on paper and then running through the ac's is actually quicker more efficient than floundering.

Restoring most manuscripts

Some of these to be restored are suspect

Restored -> Safety ensured

Not frequented -> Not restored

A) ok, easy. We know some of the suspected are being restored. So some suspect therefor have to be frequented (non-frequented arent being restored)

B) Could be false. "we have decided to restore most of our medieval manuscripts that are of widely acknowledged cultural significance" We can only talk about most not all.

C) This wants to chain the two conditionals together but we cant do that.

D) nothing about quantifiers

E) We can't talk about things that are not widely acknowledged to be of cultural significance. We're given nothing about it.

Why E is wrong. There's already enough food in the world to make everyone full we dont need new chefs making new dishes.

Someone saying this isnt a good response. But my new dishes could make you just as full.

Very incredibly hard. Curve Breaker type question. E felt like a trap, was too easy, but couldnt find a better answer. Flaws are usually quite cookie cutter but theyre not like NA questions, we can have new factors introduced (though they do it rarely) so don't discount ACs just because they introduce new terms.

Two important ideas you need to catch in the stim:

"Could appreciate" if this was can then we dont got no flaw. Could infers the potential ability not the promise."

"Many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled" this is only relevant to why E is wrong. The stimulus refers to the aesthetic fulfillment in a person as a whole. Answer choice E refers to aesthetic fulfillment derivable from an artwork.

Why E is wrong. There's already enough food in the world to make everyone full we dont need new chefs making new dishes.

Someone saying this isnt a good response. But my new dishes could make you just as full.

D capitalizes on the could. Yah there is enough but not everyone can get to them. So the new work is relevant.

Got this one wrong with an easy mistake. Discounted E but fell for the same trap with A the two arent mutally exclsuive.

Classic bridge the gap with just word salad.

Given these ideas: Projects

then given this random word in the conclusion: Moral

So given ideas causes (make sure not too strong and matches stim, word is literally in stim) random word in the conclusion

This was a very hard question. We need to prove the idea that negative evidence is not conclusive.

First selected A: this was a bad choice. Ultimate should have been the key word here. If something is ultimately wrong, negative evidence was conclusive.

BR: selected D. Better than A but still bad. The failure to find vulcan convulsively proved that newtons law was wrong.

B: initial was a good hint. WE have the idea that newtons law should predict orbit, is newtons law wrong. No. the auxiliary thesis is wrong. Duh

Really struggled with this. Selected C in a huff when I realized I spent too much time on this question. C is wrong because A is explicitly about lying. D is the only AC that is not directly wrong.

picked the wrong thing here. Needed to solidify the rule and then properly apply it. Our rule applies to two rational beings and one acting immorally. That immoral action allows for the return of immoral actions. So:

Rational Being Responds immoral -> Rational being act immoral

We have to validate the idea that the right to lie, acted immorally, is not granted by oathroligical liar lying to you. So we either have to say that this person isnt a rational being or that these pathological lies arent immoral.

A) We dont know anything about irrational acts. Useless

B) Here we go. Pathological lairs arent rational so this rule doesnt apply therefor there action doesnt grant sufficient justificaiton to lie/ respond immorally

C) This strengthens the argument by granting the status of rational being to them. The opposite of what we want to do.

@Prodigy0 Very good point on compromising has both parties losing and gaining. Once you look at the "avaliable to everyone" in the last paragraph E should be wrong and that really only leaves A.

Fell for d. its too strong of an answer. Did not like some in C, some is often too weak but if we go to the conclusion we have more likely.... thats perfect for some

B got me. Its too strong of an answer especially compared to E. We go from demand to parts to salability as a whole. We don 't need the exclusivity of junkyards

Slow down take a second and realize that the stim is sayng abstract paintings are in the art movement

I had selected D not liked it had more time but for some reason did not investigate further. A lot going on here. The correct answer is kind of a word vomit, a classic trick of wrong answers so you may discount it quickly and not even consider it.

Study found found in industrialized areas weekend days tend to be cloudier than weekdays.

Seven day weather cycles that occur naturally are too insignificant and infrequent too account for this.

Therefor human activity has an appreciable effect on weather.

A) This is what you want to work. But this more of like a weakener or strengthener. Not in the realm of NA.

B) We already know this to be true

C) If the argument said living organisms but it doesnt. So this is not quite useful.

D) What I selected. Issue is that we don't need to the input to be cyclical just it to have a cyclical effect

E) Without this another x amount of natural cycle could be the cause and therefor human activity is not responsible

The idea behind E is always applicable wehn you say its not x therefor its y. You need to prove that if it cant be x it also cant be anything else other than y. You need mutually exclusiveness. E does this by eliminating any other natural cycle.

I liked B but we really need to connect our ideas to duress/ freedom its just hanging there. A just has too strong language...

E is the only okayish answer so its what we have to roll with.

got this stupidly wrong. Obviously we talked more about Korobkin's plan then Jackson and mentioned it. A is not wrong, but is it the main focus, obviously not.

Got this question wrong. Often struggle with disagree questions on comp think im going to skip forward for them in the future after the first view so Im fresh with one perspective,

B is very tricky because the second paragraph talks about the boons of getting more people to come but a diverse audience is not necessarily the diversity required. The specific wording of B AC should have had you maybe word search and youd see that it was explictly not justifiable.

For D, thats an easy yes from our first guy but harder to find what our second person thinks of. We can get there from the last sentence of the first paragraph: t must show that subsidies will enable many more people to enjoy works of art that are decidedly better than art that is privately funded.

His whole point is that subsidies are justified so it becomes quite obvious than that the requirement for it to be justified is not met.

I really didnt like B and C seemed the better answer but capture what the conclusion is about in this case not legal but the severity of the crime. C is too broad. With principles questions take a second to understand what the principle is strictly considering.

Kind -> prosper

(stinky respect) Prem

Dislike -> /Fully Content

/Dislike -> Kind

From that first:

/Dislike -> Kind -> Prosper

then

Fully Content -> /Dislike -> Kind -> prosper B

I really struggled with this question. Usually, we strengthen by evidence proving the conclusion or by evidence attacking the alternate explanation.

More modern tests have you attacking the premise. This question is a perfect cookie cutter example, No active volcanos have been identified. Okay well thats very strong. How can we attack this, the itentified part. Well what if it was impossible to identify volcanoes, than your pillar of evidence falls apart.