Can I make you an analogy? You think your partner is cheating using social media on their phone. What most strengthens the case that they are are not cheating?

A) Doing an extensive settings search for social media to realize screen time is at all time low, with at most 15min a day.

D) checking one of their apps & zoning in on one unknown persons conversation & finding that one conversation purely platonic.

Yes, this is the exact thinking I used to quickly pick A hahah I hope it helps.

Reading this days after the UH CEO passing is gold

After 30 sec , I can tell this is going to cost time & I wanted to skip. The great things about this being practice is since MOMMA DIDN’T RAISE A PUNK, I had to buckle down and actually do the question. Took 5 minutes but I confidently selected the right answer.

This is the FIRST time on my entire 7sage journey where, when I narrowed it down, the correct answer was already eliminated ….. rough

The reason it’s not E is because that’s not that flaw. E is talking about correlation, while the argument’s conclusion reaches an invalid causal link.

I didn't know promote was causal language ganggg wya

I thought A because I was considering that the excerpt was a sub-conclusion / major premises for the main conclusion ….

Change that was not to was. It reads “The DNA of prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans WAS significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans.”

First question I’ve ever gotten correct in under target time. LETTSS GOOOOO!!

Let me know if I’m wrong. The reason strong claims like “guarantee” doesn’t work for correct answer choices on NA is because when it is negated ‘does not guarantee’ leaves a big range on the scale of guarantee (never guarantees - sometimes guarantees) and those types of claim will ALWAYS fail the negate test. ?? Anyone else think of it like this ?

Does anyone else feel like they kicked up most of the answer choices phrases to the domain. The same 3 phrases kept getting repeated ( A E D ). I was like I must be missing a grammar thing and binggoooo

I wrote out what assumptions I had make to make these answer choices actually weaken the conclusion. And I realized for E the biggest assumption is that because they are susceptible they will get it anyways so it doesn’t give us a good sense on whether sunscreen is preventative or not. for B the biggest assumption made is that young people don’t use sunscreen which this assumption was more reasonable since its supported by the timeline in the stimulus.

I really would have nailed this if it was a weakening question.

#feedback 6 & 7 were understandable after reading the explanation. If could we get a video on when the indicators are on single clauses ( question section 6) & what we should be evaluating on a comparison within conditional logic ( question section 7) then that would been helpful to see if I am grasping what I should know by now.

Many helpful videos for them individually. For this exercise I was unsure if I was supposed to do more with these embedded comparison clauses & I was unsure on how to change a singular clause into a conditional logic ( if there’s an existing video can someone drop the name)

I think the confusion comes from them being weak arguments. Both of their conclusions lie on support of the first sentence (the premise) & some outside mentioned factor (specifically physical activity and fossil fuel combustion). With those outside factors being ASSUMED to be apart of the premise (which was just an observation in these cases), the conclusion would follow naturally if we made those assumptions too.