oh my god. i got 11 wrong because i screwed. up. GRAMMAR. I saw "research suggests that the family of puerto rican americans does not..." and I took "the family" that to mean that it was refering to ALL PUERTO RICAN AMERICANS. but the got damn. subject verb agreement. Because "americans" is plural, but that's NOT THE SUBJECT. The subject is "the family" which is NOT. PLURAL. I was watching this video like "wait... the family do... not?"

Like, it they had said "This family" or "at least one family" id have gotten it in the bag, but nooooooooooo I had to trip over myself.

This is also true and it does make the question confusing but! They don't just say "in traffic" they say "in traffic or at stoplights. and I know you can also move at stoplights, but that's not usually what a stoplight implies. When someone tells me they're at a stoplight, I immediately think "ok, they're stopped" not "oh, they're prolly still moving really slowly."

Also, and idk if i'm wayyy off here, but think about it this way:

Lets say that Levin really did mean the cars moved "very slowly."

So its like this:

Shaw: We should calculate emissions based on averages from power plants, not peak emissions

Levin: That's dumb, like saying we should calculate speeding tickets based on averages, including time spent when you move really slowly. Which is kinda like if a powerplant was outputting really low levels of pollutants, say, during a time of low demand, that would count twoards its overall pollution level and bring it down a fair bit.

So sure, fine argument, but isn't he kinda hedging his bets here? why would he go for this weak rebuttal, when he could say:

Levin: That's dumb, like saying we should calculate speeding tickts based on averages, including time spent when you're literally not moving. Which is kinda like if a powerplant was doing maintance, and putting out no pollution at all, that would count towards it's overall pollution level and bring it WAYYYYY down.

Wouldn't that be the stronger arg? just my 2 cents. but I got this wrong as well so idk lol.

this kills me becasue i fell for it to. the analogy isn't power plant pollution to car pollution. its power plant pollution to car SPEED. and cars dont move when stopped or in traffic.

I still cannot comprehend how on q 25, making internet users pay a fee is seen as more of a compromise than letting academics copy material? like its not saying that no one can copy material accept academics, it's saying that academics can copy material, something that copyright holders already allow for physical media and that internet users would be cool with. If internet users see media as raw material, how is it possible they would be okay paying for it???? #help

I was debating between C and D, because I saw "the reactions of jurors" and thought that was correct, because the passage does mention that "the hostile revelation could be more damaging" and I thought that meant damaging to the opinion of jurors. BUT C also talks about other lawyers, and the passage doesn't and THAT is why I picked D.

yippieeee

Im procrastinating so lemme explain a lil. A film maker has lots of tricks at their disposal to give things meaning. Like when a nature documentary gives every lion in a pride a name, and plays sappy music when they groom eachother. Early colonizers did this too, either consciously or subconciously, thus making indigenous peoples seem one way, even if they're not. For example, perhaps film makers of the time paid particular attention to indigenous song and dance, so when the film in shown to other colonists, they assume that all indigenous people do is sing and dance. The colonial gaze is similar to the male gaze because it is a way of seeing the "other" as a stereotype and not as a people, and it also perpetuates those stereotypes to others rant over :D

Drilling mud and stained glass are both very interesting to me due to various species of worms in my brain.

I needed this after NA...

man what EVERRRRRRR >:(

slayed this ;)

HOW IS THIS ONLY A 2/5.

i got this right but this one is BULLLLLLSHIIIIIIT

this is insane i cannot imagine solving this in just over a minute.

"Although most studies reviewed in this paper reported adverse neurotoxic effects of UV filters at concentrations substantially higher that those observed in environment and human tissues, these studies should not be disregarded, as they afford potential pathomechanisms which might occur in other conditions or sensitive populations... Unfortunately, the effects of repeated, long-term and low-dose exposures to single compounds and mixtures of various UV filters is also poorly studied. More studies are needed to evaluate the realistic hazard of contemporary sunscreens."

Weakened that hypothesis for ya.

Easy. EZZZZZZ

Isn't the correct answer just the contra-positive?

polluted air → eradicated

/eradicated → /polluted air

I took three minutes going through the causal logic of E. I did the chain correctly. and then I picked it anyway because I forgot this was an except question. -.-

EZ YALL GET GOOD

I don't understand that difference either...

Hey, if any of yall are confused or need more help, I took a class on logic years ago and my prof assigned this textbook. It's totally free and really good. It's called forallx calgary. They even made a website you can download it from. https://forallx.openlogicproject.org/