Yes, since in this case, the answer was in the middle of the spectrum, not supporting or weakening.

twin 4x

You have absolutely zero information about her community or challenges.

likewise, or take more multiple gap years

finally the comment i was looking for

I agree, its not so much about the cheese and baked goods. The point is that they replaced the red meat with something that contains more fat. C states that their fat consumption is about the same. C would be correct if it stated that they consumed more fat than the people who stopped eating red meat. This is what D is stating, which is the distinction.

Same, I initially didn't like A because even if it is a tiny percentage a 5x change is still a change, the question literally hung on "virtually" but I went with it because E was worst imo. If there was no consensus then how would they have come up with the mass in the first place? Even then it doesn't explain why that mass remains unchanged.

B is also a fact that needs a further explanation as to how the other options compare to killing mosquitos. The last lesson it was stated that this was a wrong answer pattern.

4/5 with hardest difficulty! Granted it took me about thirty minutes lol my head hurts.

lets goo!!!

The second sentence of the context makes a claim. "the penalty impoesd on the companyy will probably have little if any effect on its behavior." How do we make the distinction between this being the authors claim or context. I was stuck between C and D and eventually chose D because the premises supported it more than C but this still tripped me up.

You are correct, D is a necessary assumption (NA) that the argument makes. Without it, the argument would be really weak. If this was a NA assumption question then D would most likely be correct. D provides a link in the hole of the argument and strengthens it.

However, to help you understand why D is incorrect in this main conclusion question, D is wrong because the question is not asking for the necessary assumption of the argument. It is asking what is the main conclusion of the argument. The strength/weakness of the argument is pretty irrelevant here, but I don't know if we never use it for MC questions because it may be possible that the necessary assumption may be a MC?

It may be helpful to look at D as a major premise. D itself supports C (the main conclusion.) "If galloping would have broken the legs of Apatosaurus, then Apatosaurus was probably unable to gallop. Therefore, The claim of paleontologists that Apatosaurus was able to gallop is likely to be incorrect." If the claim is supporting another claim then it is a premise and can't be the main conclusion.

Hope this helps!!

literally feel like the weight of an elephant has been lifted off of my shoulders.

When we say identify an alt. hypo, is this us creating it in our head? Or reading between the lines of the question and finding an alt. hypo. That's implied by the question?

Yes, All is 100%

Some is at least one.

If its true that all grass is green, then it is valid to conclude that some grass is green.

This is also true for most.

This would be the equivalent to 'only a minority of New Yorkers ride the train'

The negation is kind of like being in an argument and someone says you're wrong and doesn't state how.

saying its not the case that most new yorkers do not ride the train simply erases that concept. it does make an additional assertion.

The way I think about it is that the cat needs mammals. If all mammals disappeared, cats and everything else would go with them.

The reasoning you gave explains why going to the store would be a necessary condition for buying the milk. I guess the store would be a superset and the milk would be a subset.

I was thinking the same thing, I thought I was trippin

Great explanation

same here

Can someone explain 11.1 and 12.1? Also why is there an object missing on some but not for others?

For example, in 14.2 should rescued be the object? and in 13.3 the object is there, is there a difference? why is it underlined in 13.3 and not 14.2?

anyone? #feedback

Can someone explain 5.5? to me the major premise seems like the man conclusion because it is also supported by it. Am I looking at it/ reading it wrong?

In an argument, is there a such thing as a semi conclusion? in 3.2 there first sentence can be seen as a conclusion. "Quality suffers when a company diversifies its product line too much. By trying to cater to too many different markets, the company may not excel in any of them. Consequently, if the company wants to achieve success, it should focus on one specific market."

The next sentence is a premise to the first sentence, and I under stand that both of the first sentences are premises to the conclusion once it comes in but could the first sentence be a semi conclusion? Or only a premise?