- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Yes i see confusion here too but my reasoning was that E just adds something a little new to the conclusion that makes it less appealing: "voting in new people."
But do we need support for that that the argument doesn't give us? The argument tells us that people usually fix things early on, and that if they don't, they have to do all of this denying/lying, etc. So what's the good solution suggested here? Get more new people in that fix things early.. but yes i was really unhappy about E this is just how i understood it
D is correct because it works out both problems:
if the crazy oil production that causes bad oil contamination STOPS during the war, that explains why our oil contamination is lower.
if we have crazy oil production that causes bad oil contamination in PGulf and we compare it to "temperate oil-producing" regions, that explains our oil contamination difference.
i think the trick is the "oil-producing" factor.
@VanillaCat i think the key word is "disruptive." like they are afraid he's going to disrupt something by driving over speed limit, even though they do it at 2am on an empty highway
initially i didn't think society was necessarily AWARE that picaro was reflecting their hypocrisy. i thought they just found him annoying. & the reflection was recognized by readers. but i guess that was my own inference and incorrect
for me the logic is that we have a conditional conclusion but it's supported by just a premise. we have a necessary condition in the conclusion that we want to protect, and to do that, we can make it "necessary" for the premise too. This works with like a problem premise and a conditional goal conclusion
P: Problem
C: If we want to achieve a Goal, we need to implement Y.
Supporting this conclusion with JUST a problem in a premise doesn't fully establish/explain why Y is necessary .... We need further proof of a connection
P: Nurses are currently overworked.
C: If we want better nurses, we need more funding.
In order for nurses to NOT be overworked, we need more funding.
(Nurse /overworked --> more funding)
NEGATION: Nurses can have normal hours without more funding. Now we have no reason to come to the conclusion based on the premise
i think the hard part is the "success" idea.. but success can refer to the accomplishment of a goal or purpose
Laurie thinks that "success" = bringing ppl together/reconciliation and that contemp art has FAILED (meaning NO success).
Elsa disagrees with Laurie about her reasoning for this failure (in other words, the CRITERIA that Laurie used for success)
method of looking at MP qs as main conclusion questions would work for this all of the other ACs are "support" for the main point (or trying to resemble the support)
@zakariaJannane Ok yes interesting. I think u are basically saying the same idea as the correct AC. It’s necessary we get rid of any factors that might DISCOURAGE the new businesses from coming in, otherwise why would we conclude that the protection could help our economies? Alo doesn’t even want to come anymore because of the disdain. We aren’t getting that new business anymore, why would we get the tree protection that hurts lululemon? It seems like u are thinking of another potential necessary assumption maybe? U have got me thinking
Another example of this might be
People's fear of black cats causes lower black cat adoption rates
Response: Overall cat adoption rates are fine
Problem: the initial C-->E we stated might have an effect on the response relationship. The decreased black cat adoption is consistent with people adopting other cats, and keeping the adoption rate constant. Likewise, the overall global level is consistent with the antarctic level decreasing