awesome! thanks for clearing it up.

count me in!!!

I thought AC A would be right because it attacks the conclusion which is not allowed hence it couldn’t be considered weakening the Argument ? #help

I cannot fathom the fact JY didn't know who Elon was 😭

For those confused by why D was wrong it’s not so much in our right to assume whether pollution is posing a risk to life or not because, what if it does in the long term and is in a sense still life threatening, but more so that there maybe other alternatives to recieve the same benefit of allowing pollution. For example some may consider biking a convenient way to travel without needing to pollute. So it would be wrong to say D is right because we cannot assume driving is the only way to recieve that benefit which Is one of the principles in the stimulus.

This honestly becomes so much easier when I just use "common sense". I feel like JY needs to separate some of these into a different question type. Not all SA are best answered by lawgic in my opinion*.

#help Why are we forced to assume the third premise given to us about "some lawyers being cattle ranchers" is irrelevant?? I actually thought C was the incorrect choice because the stimulus specifically states that only some lawyers are cattle ranchers. by JYs logic it makes sense and that's what I would've thought had it not been being supplied that misleading premise. I just don't understand why the correct choice relies on people denying a portion of the stimulus.