14) I see why the D is correct

C) THe author doesnt really provide an opinion about this but the word fortunately shares her opinion and gives us the insight to answer this Q.

We dont know why shes against detachment.

10) I have no idea how i got this wrong

A) THere just no support for this and if they misinterpreted it or not

B) THats not what the passage is trying to support.

C) Yes thats obvious. The ppl that worked in the field said they opted to do something else because it wasnt scientifically rigorous meaning that the current subject isnt rigorous

E) IDK if the variability is the reason or not

Question 3:

THe whole trick in this question is to get you to look at the symptoms in the above paragrapgh and screw you.

A) has nothing to do with this rlly

B) They try to trick you by looking in the above paragrapgh. Although I still believe that this would help to a certain extent it doesnt help nearly enough as E. because a person could have insomnia and it being completely unrelated to our disease

C) No mention

D) We dont know if genetic

E) This is good because it says in the paragrapgh that a person with this definitely has this. because this is how the prions transform

Easy passage weird Q:

1) Main Point Q:

A) This just isint the main point of the argument. Also dont use prions as the example that is the main point of the passage

B) This is good this gives a good overlook on what prions are and is factually accurate

C) Doesnt encapsulat ethe entirety of the passage

D) Chose this was debating between B,D,E. I see why this is not it. On a basic level, it completely is denying the middle-end part of the passage were its talking abt how good it is and how its helped. Also, initially recieved and recieved are two different things Intially recived as it states in the passage makes one infer that its viewpoint changing. THe other one makes it seem as the view popint stands still

E) Factually accurate, but deoesnt give a main point of argument. Idk if prions are good or bad just seems like a bland statement

I didn't watch all the video yet but i think i get the reasoning. When I saw this I panicked but I realize why its B.

C: People become less happy when they become more wealthy.

A) Highest level of happiness? Who said you were in the highest level of happiness in the first place

B) The more unfulfilled desires, the happier one is. The argument concedes already that money helps you attain desires. Since money helps attain desires, but you are still unhappy. but if you have a lot of unfufilled desires then you would persumably be unhappy but the argument is saying the opposite.

C) Not increase? This is a false dichotomy. It can still the same.

D) Irrelevant

E) Irrelevant

Im confused why JY says no ulterior motives cant they say that alternative motive is watching better moovies without any sentimental? #help

Dammit chose B instead of D. Diis saying that just because their reason may or may not be good it still shouldn't be presumed to be false. B is saying alternative motives like theyre making money or getting a real benefit by saying their claim. D is much better than B.

Jy is exactly right on why I put C for this question. If you mistaken the conclusion basically for any Q type your screwed expecially for stregthen. Cause how the hell can you stregthen without knowing what your strengthening!! I mistakenly thought that I was supposed to stregthen the first sentence which screwed me. But after realizing what the conclusion was for this argument it makes sense why A is right.

C: attribute spider populations increase to loss of bird species.

A) Ok alternative reason looks good to me

B) Nice but irrelevant

C) Exactly what I ws saying. If your strengthening first sentecne this would be good but thats not conclusion

D) Irrelvant

E) Irrelevant

This is such a BS question

Ok I definitely see why the answer is D.

C: Whether legal or not, it was wrong for him to do.

P: Must have realized that his action put people at risk

This is a P→C.

It is wrong to put people at serious risk. The rest just try to sound relevant

I chose B during timed and I see why its wrong 1) we dont care about legality that does not matter at all. Since this is rrelavsnt it makes the conclusion basically irrelavant. It doesnt connect the premesis to the conclusion it gets the conclusion part right that it can be wrong from a moral standpoint but illegality is unecessary its just fluff we need the real premise to show out.

realized action put ppl at risk→wrong for him to do

THe conclusion for this is the conditional statement.

Political Organizer: Our group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers if Marcia Garson is to have a chance at winning the election since she will only win if the public is fully informed about her record. To fully inform the public at least 30 pppl, must campaing for her but we dont havr any money

MP

A) I see how ppl fall for this but this is a main point question

B) Nah

C) THey make it hard for you to seesince the If.. is after the necessary condition. But yeah the whole argument is revolving around this. There is a since.. right after it;. The fully inform the public is explaining the necessary condtion in the conclusion.

D) No

E) No

Should always look to read the context of the argument went hunting just for the conclusion and got C without reading argument fr ;)

C is in reverse

I see why this E is wrong. They played a. shell game here and it screwed me. THe argument says frequently that does not mean Never. Also, beliefs does not equal behaviour Additonally, labeling the correct sub-conclusion and conclusion is vital for getting this question right.

26)

I chose answer E but i completely see why this is wrong. Its actually directly contradicted in the last sentence of the passage. Additionally, C is supported because it says that it was inappropriate for high status.

20)

C) This is the only one that explains what is happening in this fourth paragrapgh even remotely correctly.

A) It doesnt reveal a potential problem

B) Theres no sort of comparison occuring here

D) Its not questioning their relevance rather it is just saying rather it is just trying to justify

E) It is trying to find the similarity not differences.

21) A) This is just obviously it

C) Outlineing the potential solution. Reading the paragraph again it is obvious that there is no solution being presented here.

4)

Strengthening the modification of a film for distribution:

A) How does this have anything to do with the argument. Ok.. so they still accept it but it has nothing to do with the film distribution.

B) This weakens the argument. The authro is telling you that its bad how theyre changing it. Your responding.. no its not as bad as it used to be the tech theyre using is improving

C) Again, thi has nothing really to do with the argument. Okay, so they rely on these corrupt forms of movies to judge them. How does this effect the argument about the modification of a film for distribution.

D) IDC

E) This is good since the soundtrack is important therefore, when altered could impact the film severly.

6) I chose B for this. This answer is wrong because the passage is litterally suggesting this is horrible for the entirety of the passage. LOL. The author is worried that the critics see the authentic version and ppl distort it therfore, everything is ruined.

A) THe first part is definitely supported. But making explanatory material available is made out of thin air I have no idea where that's from

C) This is good. THere is support for this in second paragrapgh. He says that the worst part of subtitiling is that it distorts the authro. but the AC is saying theyre doing it to be completely like the original.

D) Why not> If its in the same language its fine

E) Should not be restructured.

I chose E for this question.

Some killer whales eat seals. The seals can find out which one eat them or not based on their dialect. The biologists hypothisize, young harbor seals start off being scared of all forms of killer whales then eventually learn to be scared of the one that eats them.

Strengthen

E) I chose this answer like most. The problem with this answer is that the sufficient condition isint triggered like logic games when rule doesnt trigger it fallls away. IDK what happens when its mistakenly bitten by a whale that doesnt normallly eat it. Also, I dont even know the age of the harbor seals so how the hell am i gonna which category does it fall in to even asses if it strengthens. This doesnt stregthen at all.

C) Now this definitely stregthens the conclusion it reaffirms the part of the conclusion that the young seals just run away from everything. This is very good. especially when compared to E

This one was a bit tough.

The thing that we are forced to identify is a concession by the author.

A) No this isnt it. This isint some sort of pricniple.

B) It does this but Im honestly getting it out of POE

C) Does not justify rhe need of this

D) This isnit a hypothesis thats rejected its more of a concession.

E) It is not the conclusion. "This is unfortuante" is conclusion

I chose A and immediately see why its wrong If I read more carefully, this wouldve been an easier Q. The researchers tried but failed tells you all you need to know to eliminate A if they tried to understand why its the case but cant find it it stronly suggests that it more likely to be made up rather than to the arthritis ppl being correct. Also, we know that theyre isint one specific time the arhrtitis starts hurting Thats why we can eliminate A because it suggests more that theyre making it up than the weather effecting theyre arthritis

The problem with D is that it we just dont know how important it is for the for the ancient cultures and the modern cultures. There are universal things that everyone does, but we don't know how important each task is for every individual because it depends on each one's circumstances.

C) THe thing that really led me off of C was the word ALL I felt that that was a big word to say but i didnt see the word universal in the stimulus which screwed me over. Since it is a universal aspect of old and new cultures then it makes sense for certain human concerns and interests to arise.

Ok the reasoning for why A is wrong makes complete sense i completely glanced over the fact that A is talking about the set as a whole while the stim is only talking about a specific subset. As he said, it could very well be that the kids decreased while allergiers went up for adults. Def doesnt support as well as E

Ok i def see how this is E now. I preaphrased the flaw correctl as its comparing apples ot oranges but did not choose the correct AC.

I chose D and glanced over E

D is incorrect because its actually strengthening the argument The argument isint saying that its going to benefit tons of ppl it could have been enough for one person to benefit and the conclusion can be rendered valid. So therfore, if one person is benefiting it actually reaffirms the conclusion therfore strengthening

However, E is exactly the flaw I caught in prephrase and its pointing out a difference in the tech industry it is not like the national parks. THerfore, they cant adopt this strategy.

When I read this the flae that cam to my moind, was okay just because it can have life doesnt mean it has to have life. But i also def see how this is sufficieny/ necessity confusion. It just didnt match my prephrase which screwed me on this question I chose C and i dont even understand what it rlly means ;(

Over the past 25 years, skin cancer has grown but sunscreen hasnt done nothing to stop it.This shows that using sunscreen is unlikely to reduce a persons risk of developing such skin cancer.

Weaken:

I was stuck between B and E. I have no idea why I was so attached to E. In hindsight, I see how this E can strentgthen rather than weaken because if the percieved cancer patients are using more sunscreen regularly and are actually, still getting it than that strengthens the conclusion. But were trying to weaken and say that it does help and B gets us there

E) I chose this answer choice