I fell for the comparative statement, but almost chose C. The only thing that stopped me was the wording. I'm looking at the conclusion reading, "in cities that impose strong tax increases" over an AC that mentions unrelated "areas around cities".
I guess this one is just right because although, not absolute, it weakens the argument the most of the other ACs?
#help
Leaving this up in case it helps anyone else struggling with the same issue I had.
I found that I took the reference to support and looking to attack the non-existent assumptions rather than attacking the premise or conclusion. Despite natural reactions to an argument, I thought I was looking for an answer that didn't reference the premises or conclusion ( I know, a silly mistake ).
Hope this helps.
I've tried time and again, but I'm just not grasping this weakening concept. Especially if the stem is asking me to find the correct answer, "if true". I don't know why, but everything I've learned in MSS has me wired to not believe these.
In addition, trying to find the support between the Premise and Conclusion is leaving me blank and lost.
Any tips?
When I first look at an LR question and try to map it out with conditional logic, I get the answer wrong often and in the video explanation, JY maps it out completely different than I envisioned. Sometimes, I map out elements that are irrelevant to the argument or I'm creating too complex maps that aren't easily boiled down.
What do I need to review so I can get a better understanding?
Is there a reason that the H ->
Pisn't just off the side outside of the conditional chain? That's where I got hung up. Why are we able to assume the H is at the front of the chain (H->C) rather any other random place in the chain? #help