@corykopicki143 That is exactly what I thought. It gives no reason for why an initial satellite collision would occur to set off this chain reaction of fragments. It seems like really bad support to me.

The reason I thought of this as unsupported at first was because the stimulus states that currently "no satellite orbiting Earth is at significant risk of colliding with other satellites or satellite fragments" Then the stimulus goes on to mention how once one collision occurs there will be a chain reaction with fragments. But while reading this I was thinking "well what support does the author give that there would be this initial collision in the first place? Thats why I thought of it as unsupported.

Am I the only one who feels that the whole "kicking up into the domain" thing makes these types of questions unnecessarily more complex than they need to be. Why would I ever do that method when I could just do A--->B Therefore A--->C. Missing link is B--->C. Why kick up anything into the domain. The question format seems pretty straightforward. Why make things more difficult than they need to be and add extra time to the explanation video?

I am confused. If we negate A, one interpretation would be that the gardeners following phases of the moon plant at the same time as those who plant at the first warm spell of spring, which WOULD wreck the argument. I understand that.

But another interpretation of negating A would be that these gardeners following the phases of the moon plant way before. Assuming they do plant way before, how do we know that they do not plant early enough that by the time the first warm spell of spring rolls around the plants are grown enough to resist problems from a frost that come later on down the line? #HELP

The reason A confuses me is that even though I got it right I thought it was working in the opposite direction. For example, if the phenomenon is that they regard the scientific evidence as more credible in court than outside court, wouldn't them knowing that the judges prescreened it actually hurt the legal theorist's hypothesis? If they did not know and still regarded it as more credible anyway, then that would mean that there were no preconceived notions making them bias. Whereas if they did know, they are now more likely to say it is credible regardless of what they may or may not have known because they have preconceived notions. Wouldn't them knowing actually hurt the legal theorists hypothesis since it is not the fact that judges prescreen the evidence that causes the effect, but actually just that the jurors know the legal theorists prescreened. Wouldn't this be bolstering an alternative hypothesis if they knew, thus weaking the argument?

I got it right through POE. I get that it is a MSS and not a MBT question. But my issue with the right answer is that we do not actually know that the zookeeper really was deceived. Just that the Orangutan attempted to deceive them. How do we know the zookeeper was not just testing them or playing along? Doesn't the act of deception necessitate that someone actually be deceived?

So I guess for the purposes of this question it is reasonable to assume in answer choice B that being able to articulate something is the same as being able to acknowledge something? One side of the arguments premises leads to "can articulate" while the other leads to "impossible to acknowledge." Why are we to assume these are necessarily the opposite of one another?

The video contradicts the analysis here. The video states that the conclusion is the last sentence, but when I click on show analysis the last sentence is given as support for the second to last sentence which the analysis identifies as the conclusion.

Fo A, I understand why it does not match the flawed pattern of reasoning. But i was confused in the explanation video when he said we could kick the idea of baking in a reliable oven up with the other sufficient conditions/premises. How? Wouldn't we need to leave it under the line in the conclusion? I am confused because I know that "if" is a sufficient condition indicator, but we do not know whether she will bake it in a reliable oven in the same way that we do know the argument structure says she has properly combined the right ingredients. So how can we kick the idea of up with rest of the premises, if it is not a given that it will actually happen? For any other question type this wouldn't work. Would it?

So just to clarify, when the stimulus says that "The gold mined in this region was the purest known" what they mean is that the senegal gold was the gold that was the purest unrefined gold/gold found mined?

I think this would support B because if senegal gold is the purest gold found mined/unrefined gold, it would have to be the case that there were other unrefined golds that were less than the unrefined 92 percent senegal gold since the senegal gold is the purest known (unrefined).

Not sure if I am the only person that did this, but I mistook answer choice C to mean that a larger variety of vegetables being used in these cuisines could mean that other vegetables being used were replacing the use of carrots in these cuisines which may explain why it is that people were getting less vitamin A then previously. I now see that that was an unreasonable assumption and that it does not reconcile the argument since we still have to account for the increased demand happening at the same time as vitamin A deficiency going up.

This question feels like cheating. It's not fair to make the correct answer about effecting your neighbor's property rights when the stimulus only talked about one's own property. I understand how the right answer explains the discrepancy, but it would be pretty difficult to spot this as the right answer on test day. When I think of remodeling on ones own property, I am not thinking at all about neighbors. I get they are talking about zoning laws....but still, I do not think this is a fair question.

I do not understand how A supports this at all. I am confused.

"Prospective buyer of an item must be able to contact a large number of independent prospective sellers and compare the prices charged for the item to what the item is worth"

I understand the logic contrapositive back to not free market. What confuses me is the language in the quotation above. "Comparing prices for the item to what the item is worth." Are auto repairs really an "item"?

In some sufficient assumption questions we will have multiple unrelated premises that we do not need to find the gap between. How are we supposed to know whether we need to find a missing link between two premises or not. In this example, there's nothing indicating explicitly that these two ideas need to be in any way related. So how am I supposed to know that the right answer would not just be finding a link connecting one of these two premises with the conclusion?

I understand it when you break it down and I did get this question right. But I do not understand how I am supposed to draw out that diagram in less than two minutes and find the right answer choice. This seems like a difficult way of doing the question under timed conditions.

So, I was confused as to how the author could conclude that the premises would lead to larger amounts of the population being made of people with brain disorders. I guess the point is that people would get all other kinds of transplants that would allow them to live longer, except brain. And thus, people who otherwise would have died off for other reasons besides brain disorders of this kind, will now survive with the brain disorders??? There are several unreasonable assumptions here though. First how do we know they will survive with these degenerative brain disorders to such an extent as to it to have an effect of population increase? Second, why are we assuming that people with degenerative brain disorders are also the same people being saved by other types of transplants like heart, lungs, livers etc.? How do we know there is such an overlap between these groups as to lead to an effect in population increase of people with these degenerative brain disorders? I got the question right, I am just confused by a lot of these assumptions in the arguments reasoning. Maybe I am just unnecessarily overthinking the question? #help

I am getting kind of confused between flaw/descriptive weakening and flawed method of reasoning questions. How is this not asking for a flawed method of reasoning since the answer choice is sufficiency necessity confusion?