almost gives RRE vibes: how is it that it is universal but occurring independently ? well some societies have not been influenced

"(D) resolves the discrepancy by explaining how people could develop symptoms even after receiving a 100% effective vaccine." Where does it say the vaccine is 100% effective in the stimulus???? these explanations are just getting so lazy man. do better 7sage

how am i supposed to know how a vaccine works as a law student? feel like that is relevant here and i have 0 knowledge. 0!

"working conditions" ok....

feel like this is one of those questions where I just have to come to terms with the fact theres no way I am ever getting this right in a timed test setting.

don't understand how its C at all. if the conclusion is "Courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases" and their reasoning is bc there is no agreement surrounding the reliability, how is it that C pokes a hole in that? C literally states that they still disagree with how reliable they are. Thus, it is just corroborating what the stimulus already says. what does it matter that the threshold is higher or that they agree on some front. There is still disagreement. PLZ HELP

same.

Huh

5/5 after literally getting destroyed this entire module.

How do we know these teachers they bring in will improve student achievement

one thing I am realllllly not getting about NA as well as SA is it seems like the assumptions bounce around over whether they need to prove the premises individually or just the conclusion. Seems like its completely subjective. Oh, here we need to prove this premise but oh here we need to make sure this conclusion can be true. #frustrated

Yeah, nah.

BANG WE ARE SO BACK. AC C HAS NOTHING ON ME

yeah im lost

this would be a goated principle IRL

5/5LFG. gotta stay humble though. GGs

can AC B also be considered incorrect because its acknowledging something already stated in the stimulus? Afterall, the stimulus says that "major further incidents have been prevented" so why would we pick the AC that is just regurgitating information we already have? thats my two sense.

The stimulus acknowledged the fact that it would not guarantee success i.e, it ruled out a possible alternative/plausible hypothesis. --> is this the right way to think about it?

it also says "certain forms of exercise" instead of jogging which doesn't really help us. I find a lot of these weaken/strengthen questions you can rule out answers simply by how specific they are to what the stimulus is actually talking about. Over-generalizing appears to be something to avoid so far

first ever prediction word for word in an AC. W in the chat

I cant escape the 4/5 burger

yeah, im cooked

JY pump faked us on answer B. Had me scared for a second

Just fell to my knees after getting this right

Have we not gotten this question like 5x already?