Thought process:

Prem: It is rational to not acquire knowledge unless expects benefit outweight.

Prem(lawgic): /R(/A) -> Outweight

Prem(contrapositive): /Outweight -> R(/A)

Concl: consumers who /A -> R(/A)

Case of same necessary between two argument, thus sufficient of concl should bridge sufficient of prem

Therefore: Expected Ans: consumers who /A -> /Outweight

Fits E

Ok, not the main point of this question but learned "but not otherwise" introduces bi-condition from this q.

Thought process:

Identify the main concl and required prem

1): Traditional classroom education is ineffective

2): education in such an environment is not truly a social process and only social processes can develop students' insights (Hence followed by because)

Hence such = traditional classroom,

1) : not social process -> ineffective

2): students' insights -> social process

contra-positive to match

1) not social process -> ineffective

2) not social process -> not S' insights

Case of Same sufficient condition, therefore need if (necessary of prem) (then necessary of concl) argument.

D) not insight -> not effective match

I am so lost how switching to freedom of thought to society that protects freedom of thoughts 100% valid for this case #help

finally some win

almost forgot that modifiers can be watered down from cannot -> must not -> should not

god i am having trouble understanding how is principle q different from PSAr

Loved this page

hell this was tough question. my personal takeaway note would be do not easily equate two different terms. survey =/= business and we cannot make overall good/bad judgement call only based on survey result .

Basically MBT question i guess

@AidanWalker

Yes, exactly, and because, as you mentioned, “as temperature decreases, motion decreases,” that actually supports the answer.

There is no need to assume whether “temperature” means hot or cold, because both simply represent different points on the same temperature scale. I don’t think “temperature” is vague in the way. Hot and cold are just descriptions of relatively higher and lower temperatures.

Imagine an experiment with crash test dummies where the severity of injury in a car accident is said to be directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle.

We wouldn’t need the passage to separately specify whether “speed” means “fast” or “slow.” Directly proportional already tells us the relationship:

higher speed -> more severe injury

lower speed -> less severe injury

The same thing applies here

higher temperature -> more molecular motion

lower temperature -> less molecular motion

@SenorVic I mean it says "directly proportional". if it was to be opposite direction, would have said "inversely proportional"

I was so furious of how the fuck is our prosperity = future generation

then realized i misread it LOL FML

one of the best explanation vid. Thank you

damn, i eliminated D first seeing that the word "important" since stim has not said anything of viability of other species being important to us and thought that was assumption bait trap but i guess i just missed some critical info from stim.

Proud of myself

God i was doing so well until this part.

I misread

"... defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel" as defendant's legal counsel.

no wonder it didn't made sense. damn, could have been such an easy question fml.

So is goal of PSA to build bridge and try to make prem more relevant to concl?

okay, i was puzzled, but video was helpful ty

Damn, 40ton - 9 ton diff was a trap

fuck me

I feel so proud

god fell for the obvious trap

Asking does it require assumption helped a lot