For anyone confused on why E is the right answer despite the strong language, think of it in term buckets.

The author is trying to link unreasonable levels to being acceptable. However, wouldn't you think that simply assuming that "some pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should be acceptable" would be enough as a necessary assumption?

No. This is because the author is placing the practice of predatory pricing (PP) in the term bucket of "unreasonable levels". We do not know where this practice can end up within the term bucket. It could easily end up in the side that is not acceptable as it would acceptable. This is what the weaker assumption would look like:

Prevent Unreasonable Price Bucket

{[-----------acceptable------------][--Not acceptable--]}

This assumption allows PP to be placed in two outcomes:

{[-(PP)--------acceptable------------][--Not acceptable--]}

or

{[---------acceptable------------][-(PP)-Not acceptable--]}

Since the author asserts that this practice "clearly should be acceptable", the author does not allow any room for doubt to the reader. If we have even any reason to believe that it can fall on the side that is not acceptable, then that claim is not clearly shown.

Thus, this is what the bucket needs to look like:

[----------(PP)--------------acceptable---------------------------]

Had the author said that this practice "probably should be acceptable", we would be able to use the weaker version of this assumption.

The lesson here is that a strong answer on a necessary assumption can be strong if the language in the conclusion does not allow for doubt when fitting an example into one of its concepts.

Messaged!

Hey! I'm somewhat near in Irvine! let me know and we could definitely set up a study session!

@Kevin_Lin I think to better clear this up, avoided training should be interpreted as a Pokemon that did not train whatsoever. It would be impossible to be well trained if the pokemon avoided training altogether. Then, it would be wise to assume that the stimulus implies that WellTrained → AvoidTraining. This would make the logical chain valid. I think the phrase "avoided training" is a little confusing and ambiguous, as it could imply either that a pokemon avoided some training, or just did not train AT ALL.

@MateoAgudelo

You can't translate the first context sentence into a universal logical premise. The way you mapped it "Water of Life --> BG's Rituals" implies that if you use the water of life, then it is a BG ritual. This is logically false. It's best to interpret that sentence as a "Some A are B" premise. So the correct translation would be "some BG ritual use WOL".

Besides, the first sentence is unable to be chained to the rest of the argument. We cannot assume that because the WOL is used, that it is also being drank. Therefore it serves its purpose as a context sentence.

5/5! This one made the others make sense

5/5 !!

5/5!!

5/5!!

@SMRegalado Remember that these lists or groups of logical indicators are often too broad or too narrow. The word "only" does not always show a necessary condition. In this case, "only" points to a sufficient condition because many other things can count as being "written down" (like a book or a note). But if you reversed the idea, just because something is "written down" would not be enough to assume it’s the only oral myth that survived.

The main difference lies in the words that come before or after "only." The phrase "the only" is quantitative; it limits the number of possible options to a specific subset. In contrast, when "only" appears before a verb or clause, such as "only if" or "only when" it often points to a conditional relationship, which can change whether it signals a sufficient or necessary condition depending on context.

Ultimately, I think understanding this takes practice. You shouldn’t rely on the indicator words alone use them as a helpful tool, not as your main guide.

I believe there's a small mistake in the contrapositive argument portion, I think the negation of "arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell" is most accurately negated to "arrived five minutes or less than the homeroom bell" instead of "less than five minutes". The negation in the video ignores that it is possible to arrive exactly five minutes.

@ravionjackson099 I think AC:A is wrong because the conclusion is making a claim about "the scientific community" and not "each and every single scientist". You can think of it this way, if I make a claim that every single member (mom, dad, sister, you) of your family is funny, it is a distinct claim from saying that the family unit TOGETHER as a whole is funny.

AC:B therefore fits the conclusion better, because the philosopher goes from a premise about individual scientists ("personal career enhancement") to support a wider claim about the collective body of scientists ("status of that community").