J.Y. It’s a pleasure. I wanted to directly ask you if it was possible to add a feature in the blind review process where students are allowed to record notes ( it would also be helpful if we could this while watching the explanation). This will allow students be more accountable when it comes to blind reviewing since it removes the friction of having to use a cumbersome excel sheet. Next it would allow for all our notes to be centralized in one location and let us see the errors in our thoughts process. This would not only result in a potential increase in score, since students would be encouraged to blind reviewing more diligently, but it would make your platform more competitive.

I am in the same range dm me

Im down how can I reach you

also, accidents are called accidents because they are not really controlled.

I think what was most helpful for me is prephrasing and also understanding the question. It asks us to describe the method. From there you can pre-phrase that the essayist defends the original definition by showing that clairvoyance is not a reliable process. E says that clairvoyance does not fit the definition of knowledge instead of reliable process, they swap out key terms to bait you. Theoretically, clairvoyance can be a true belief if we were able to show it proven by a reliable process. We did not show that it is not a fit the definition of knowledge, we only showed that it does not fit the definition of reliable process.

I think what was most helpful for me is prephrasing and also understanding the question. It asks us to describe the method. From there you can pre-phrase that the essayist defends the original definition by showing that clairvoyance is not a reliable process. E says that clairvoyance does not fit the definition of knowledge instead of reliable process, they swap out key terms to bait you. Theoretically, clairvoyance can be a true belief if we were able to show it proven by a reliable process. We did not show that it is not a fit the definition of knowledge, we only showed that it does not fit the definition of reliable process.

Im confused why everyone thinks this is difficult lol….

I would say if you were between C and E, E requires less assumptions and focuses more on the Stim. C would require you to assume how many buddies they know where E explains a causal mechanism where the internet is making scientist lazier ( they are able to search highly regarded articles). The question asks you which one MOST HELPS EXPLAIN. I only commented because JY’S explanation ain’t helpful tbh.

#feedback it would be nice if you didnt hide the answers so we could try the question before you did it.

His explanation is not a full one so here is my best shot at one.

From the conclusion we know that IF A START HAS NO LITHIUM IT CANNOT BE ONE OF THESE COOLEST BROWN DWARFS.

In other words IF IT IS A COOL BROWN DWARF, THEN IT HAS LITHIUM.

From the premises, the relevant information is that THE COOLEST OF BROWN DWARFS CANNOT DESTROY LITHIUM.

WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND STARS HAVE LIFE CYCLES. BACKGROUND INFORMATION HELPS, BUT YOU CAN ALSO GLEAN THIS FROM WHEN THE PREMISE SAYS: STARS WHEN FIRST FORMED…

With that being said, if the coolest brown dwarfs contain lithium (the contrapositive of the conclusion ) THEN IT CANNOT BE THE CASE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN HOT ENOUGH TO DESTROY LITHIUM. Otherwise, they would not have lithium and the argument would not hold up.

Gap: how does the Cool brown dwarfs not being hot enough to destroy lithium get us to them having lithium. It must be true that this subset of brown dwarfs (cool brown dwarfs) have never been hot enough to destroy lithium.

His explanation is not a full one so here is my best shot at one.

From the conclusion we know that IF A START HAS NO LITHIUM IT CANNOT BE ONE OF THESE COOLEST BROWN DWARFS.

In other words IF IT IS A COOL BROWN DWARF, THEN IT HAS LITHIUM.

From the premises, the relevant information is that THE COOLEST OF BROWN DWARFS CANNOT DESTROY LITHIUM.

WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND STARS HAVE LIFE CYCLES. BACKGROUND INFORMATION HELPS, BUT YOU CAN ALSO GLEAN THIS FROM WHEN THE PREMISE SAYS: STARS WHEN FIRST FORMED…

With that being said, if the coolest brown dwarfs contain lithium (the contrapositive of the conclusion ) THEN IT CANNOT BE THE CASE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN HOT ENOUGH TO DESTROY LITHIUM. Otherwise, they would not have lithium and the argument would not hold up.

Gap: how does the Cool brown dwarfs not being hot enough to destroy lithium get us to them having lithium. It must be true that this subset of brown dwarfs (cool brown dwarfs) have never been hot enough to destroy lithium.

What’s difficult about this one is that we don’t know what constitutes social nature outside of being alone. So why is harming others imply that it has to be social. You could harm others without being social. Anyways, you could pick A because of the word could and it is a MSS. But tripped me up.

Lmfao, happy I cant relate to the comments because I got it right. Easily eliminated B because of the word all.

Easy for me lol

It’s wrong because it says solely, and its not what the argument solely does

Anyone confused by this needs to ask themselves is they understand what spending means. In the premises, it’s defined as purchasing new items. A negated says hey no, they are paying off their debt at an accelerated rate. So they are not actually buying new things. It undermines the conclusion.

This is what I struggled with as well, but notice the word ANY environmental problem. Any environment problem seems very broad and ecc problems would be a fair jump. Just my reasoning.

?

I had such a hard time not diagramming context

For those who chose A, I asked myself what if they traded fish lol, and still did not have the word sea in their language which is why I thought it was a stupid answer choice.

I got this right but did not even realized that astmagon was short for asthma gone because i was going so fast.