It is somewhat reassuring to know that it's virtually impossible to get a score of 0! Thanks, J.Y.!

pls don't make them into pelts :(

I think this is one of those questions that can be best answered without reading the passage at all. If anything, reading the passage makes it more confusing.

The use of the word "trivially" here makes me feel like I don't speak English.

The way I see it is that the DVC argument is the strongest because it creates an airtight logic: There are only two ways for members of DVC to gain access to the Genie+ fast pass: 1)offer propitiations or 2)prostrate. Since Walt is a member who has access but doesn't prostrate, the only possibility is that Walt offered the required propitiation. No other statement that does't contradict with the original premises can shake our conclusion. However, the tiger statement is shaky because the term "suitable" is up for interpretation so one can't necessarily equate aggression and causing injuries to mean that they aren't suitable to be kept as a pet. A statement like : "Tigers can be easily tamed and trained given appropriate guidance." can easily redirect the conclusion. Yet it's second because with the current evidence, it supports the conclusion mostly. The Trash Bin argument, well is just like the title. None of the premises proves that Mr. Fat Cat definitively did it, let alone doing so intentionally. It's a maybe conclusion, but far from the only one.

#feedback Please bring back the overview feature that lets you see the stimulus and the answer choices without listening to the video. I usually like to give these questions with lectures attached a try before listening so I can understand where my thinking could go wrong.

I understand that answer D is the best choice among all, yet I don't think the answer holds up under close scrutiny and that it is necessarily (it can be though and most likely is) inconsistent with Jo's statement:

1) Jo's claim is on the best programmers on the team and not on the most productive ones. Even though the best programmers are TYPICALLY (yet not necessarily) more productive.

2) BPs generally (not necessarily again) work best when working alone. Yet saying that they must be allowed to work by themselves doesn't mean that they can't work with someone together ever. It's simply stating that they should be given the option to do so.

Can we add the quantifier word few in the lawgic chain and make it : all -> most -> some -> few?

This question tripped me up because I was treating it like a strengthen question. That is why I think I got it wrong and I think I understand why A) is a better answer. But just out of curiosity, can someone tell me if other answers would make a better AC if the question stem were to be a strengthen question?