Leading Comprehension and Nogical Weasoning

(D) Communications specialists suck and I hate their stupid faces

I feel like rather than the main point being that the thickness in glass is due to manufacturing, it is more that it's NOT due to glass flowing

So the issue I had with A is that it doesn't seem to rule out the continuous bombardment theory, since in that theory, there wasn't an increase of bombardment 3-5 billion years but actually a decrease from heavier bombardment before. If it had said that there was no more bombardment than there is today that would be a much more compelling argument for the third theory, but as it is it seems to only rule out the first theory

so frustrating that the correct answer for a main point question does not accurately describe the main point

My dumbass thought "less expensive fuel" in question 9 meant "less environmentally expensive"

what is the benefit of the low-res summary describing what the author is doing rather than the actual content of the paragraph? like, instead of saying "that author presents their opinion," why wouldn't you give a brief description of what the opinion is?

Throwback to Matt Gaetz' restoring faith in government act

Yes, except I will add not to prematurely cross of every answer choice saying conclusion, because it might still be a minor conclusion/major premise

Oh I see. For these you can often just read the first four or five words and know whether you can eliminate. I didn't read any of the answer choices fully

Isn't this a major premise rather than a premise? It gains support from the rest of the stimulus

answer is so obvious i almost didn't pick it

can we please not privatize national parks

not to mention, even if a placebo would work just as well, that wouldn't actually weaken the idea that long term training is unwarranted, just that short term is warranted, which isn't the conclusion

How are Jo and Vanessa's principles not mutually exclusive? If the most productive programmers work alone, doesn't that violate Vanessa's "all?" "All" doesn't mean "almost all."

This is by far the hardest question yet

I feel like these questions are all about finding the inappropriate modifier. "The only?" "should never?" Those answers must be wrong

can few be only one, or must it be between one and 50%?

@WesLieberman waittttt it's because some can mean all isn't it? so "all cats are pets" also means "some cats are pets." bruhhhh

Why does "some cats are pets" also imply "some pets are cats?" Couldn't it be true that there are all cats who are pets and cats who are not, but people only keep cats as pets. "Some cats are pets" could coexist with "all pets are cats"

This is reminding me of the stimulus that said "no other headache medication works quicker than X"