The stimulus says that the textbook will contain essays by "several different authors". Doesn't that tell us that there will be more than one author? The other premise says that there won't be all three, so max two.

If we infer that there is min two and max two (exactly two), then either answer choice A or D could be right.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this.

Even with LSAC's response I still feel that the fact that the resistance to the insecticides increases, is enough to infer that the farmers have to use greater amounts of insecticides, which in turn is enough to support the main conclusion.

So, is it the word 'always' that Sergio mentions that implies the stone age here?

I am still having a hard time understanding answer choice A - if it fails to show that the mythical creature (violent and savage) represents the horse (noble and gentle) in people's minds, how does that show that it must be the humans that are violent and savage? I understand the logic as to why we should attribute these qualities to humans, but cannot see how A reflects this. Help...

I got it right without using a diagram but during the BR I did and this is what I came up with:

/SL -> /F (/V) -> U

JY would you say that this is correct?

Is there another difference between answer choice A & B aside from the "one" and "everyone"?

Can you give a hypothetical example of C?

I was under the understanding that for strengthening questions we are supposed to make the premises more relevant to the conclusion? Based on that I understood C a little different - I think C is making the one premise, namely P2, more relevant to the C. If the number of students has increased, it seems the unemployment will continue to remain high because we'll have all these graduates in these fields. That just makes it more likely that the 'doomsayers are wrong'.

JY, would you agree?

JY, what exactly does 'few' mean? I thought of few = some, which made me think that 'if the alternate code has some provisions with the same qualities as the traditional code', then the author's conclusion that 'it is imperative that we adopt the alternate code' falls apart. Why? Well, because if it's got the same issues as the traditional code then it might not fix the issues with public confidence.

For C, the author can still say: it's fine but until the problems get eliminated we should adopt the alternate code.

I can see how C weakens the argument, but thought that E weakens it more when interpreted this way.

I also think that the first and second LR are the real sections; the third LR (the fourth section) was unusual...