@0sagesfound apparently it can mean to stop. which i never knew either, I thought it just meant to be the source of. well it can mean quite the opposite.

how does one infer that the "funding" E refers to is specifically UNESCO funding, and not just any sort of funding to do anything related to UNESCO's doctrine... such as archaeological excavations funded by a country?

Hm. its interesting what they're looking for with this question. I thought B would be too redundant, so I chose D. But we're not assuming the author agrees with any of these options. So because there's no evidence the author would agree with D, D is wrong.

if B said that

"Four companies have FAILED TO market a new food processing product; therefore, a fifth company will not be able to market a similar product."

would it be more correct than C? It involves 4 separate entities trying the same thing repeatedly (like separate theories in the stimulus), instead of 1 entity trying the same thing repeatedly (unlike the stimulus).

@TomBrady69 I did it like this:

exception: he actually believes that it does not exist

rule: 

(aware of high prob) + (knowledge of existence is element of an offense) --> such knowledge is established 

@IdilErturk thats what I did, except:

/bS --> /50+ OR /10+ year

@almostfamous would it also be true that

ENW and /C --> /V

??

@annnnna *phenomenon smh

@annnnna The goal of this weakening question is to cast doubt on the link between two phenomena (disease and tea consumption). A link involving a minority of the population is still a link. You want to introduce a third phenomena that could plausibly remove all causation guilt from one of the phenomena (tea consumption).

I considered D, but then remembered a potential relationship between parkinson's and living near a golf course that i researched. What i took away from that research was this: the general population has a <1% chance of developing parkinson's. People who live near a golf course have a chance of developing Parkinson's that is closer to 1%. Therefore, there is a correlation (and likely causation), but it's still false that most people who live near a golf course will get Parkinson's. In fact, most won't. But their risk is still higher.

it says "at least some" are not active, which allows it to be poassible all are not active in the town's artistic circles. if it had just said "some", could A have been correct? a person is either active or not active -- if you are not active, then you are active, and vice versa. so if 30% of a group are not active, 70% are active.....

@annnnna ah negate sufficient. got it!

how do you know this is not right:

/empirical --> /conceivable idea that would refute it

how do you know it must be instead:

empirical --> conceivable idea that would refute it

@YellowTale yes. I read that and thought, well if there were major changes to blood osmolarity, you'd be far beyond homeostasis and you would die. I guess "major" is referring to conditions where "solutes in extracellular fluid.... at times become elevated or reduced by more than the allowed tolerances of one or two percent." because that is when the response that triggers behavioral responses happens. just. i really dislike the use of the word "major" to describe that condition. If this change in osmolarity were outside of a biological system, it may not be considered "major" because its probably very small, but the change receives the adjective "major" because its big enough to require changes in hormone secretion to maintain homeostasis. so its circular. whatever. ugh.

@PD.CONAN i agree. I also don't understand why it must be assumed that there is a need for revitalization in order to think something will be revitalized, which is the reason JY gives for why C is wrong. Why does something have to need revitalization in order to be revitalized?

great but what allows me to assume that "draft" and "sketch" are interchangeable

@annnnna the more profitable it is, the more likely it may be that its original ingredients have been exchanged for cheaper, lower quality ones?

:') does the last paragraph not indicate that profitability correlates with lack of perfume quality?

Statement A: journalists ... claim that their investigation of x is an effort to improve society by (aka. because the effort causes/performs/does) z.

Statement B: In reality, however, the tactic (the effort to improve society) is detrimental to society.

Answer choice C: Statement A is cited as evidence often given for an assertion that Statement B concludes is false.

How on earth is C false?? Statement A cites evidence of a claim that investigation of x improves society, and Statement B says that investigation of x is detrimental to society. What am I missing here?

why is D wrong?

@annnnna jk i get it now

could somebody rephrase this question for me? i can't even comprehend what the question is asking.

if jones's theory was an accepted theory..... would c be correct?

ugh. i assumed the parasite was contagious, which would make D an explanation for the causal relationship proposed in the stimulus: migrating allows butterflies to avoid parasites by allowing uninfected butterflies to physically distance themselves from infected butterflies.

i ruled B out immediately when I read "exclusively" :( Does the argument really insist on absolutely 0 quackery? not even a little? you will do yourself more harm than good if you diagnose your medical condition by relying on 95% scientific papers and 5% quackery?