@TanyaOdongo there is absolutely a method! Identify the conclusion in the stimulus then find the answer that if true, makes the conclusion 100% accurate no matter what. But also connect whatever is missing from the premise(s) and conclusion in your answer.

I kept getting these wrong until i told myself to treat this question stem like RC. 5/5 after two attempts that were 2/5 lol

@mrajic looooool

@TekenaAbere nvm i get it now!

After doing my diagram I can see that the premise says nothing about the rule of law and the conclusion says nothing about social integrity so therefore those two concepts need to be bridged. That leaves me with answer choice B and A. Does anyone understand why A is wrong? I need a better explanation for why its B and not A

@Isabella! i would say because there is no “overlap” between it and the conclusion. No mention of it in the conclusion. Only one of the premises has logical ties to the conclusion. Only one premise mentions individual freedom so only that premise can be tied/chained to the conclusion.

@ginelson wow i just tried this with the previous alien question and it works there too!! Thank you!!

@CalebMichale You have to realize that the more microglia, the more they will end up wrongfully attacking the healthy brain cells as well. Which would attribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s. So acetylsalicylic acid ends up being very helpful.

@TekenaAbere furthermore eating the same amount of iron doesn’t take away from the claim that eating less can reduce the chance of getting the disease.

I think i understand it now. Choice A is worded in a difficult way. It’s basically saying people with the genetic predisposition have the SAME amount of iron in their diets as people without the predisposition. So therefore we can rule out that any genetic factors are the cause of the disease. This doesnt tell us too much about iron but it does let us know that its not a genetic or other factor causing Parkinson’s so it therefore strengthens the argument.