I'm studying while working full-time. I take the train to work and it's about 35 minutes both ways. Any recommendations on what I can do during this time?
I'm usually standing on a full train so writing anything is out of the question, but anything I could read or listen to that could help?
I crossed out B because I felt there was an implicit assumption on the number of old people. Just because old people are more likely to develop skin cancer, how can we know this explains the continued growth in skin cancer rates? What if there are very few old people?
A wise man once said "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".
While the explanation makes sense, I do not like this question. It seems to be a major assumption to conflate most viable chance of saving with most likely chance of saving. Saying something is most viable contains the idea that something is possible to do. What if the most likely thing to save the bears was to stop the loss of habit on their island; however, this requires international involvement, thus rendering it not viable? This is why I eliminated C, because I thought the language was too strong; whereas with E, while weak, did not require any assumptions.
Please let me know where my thinking is flawed. Would greatly appreciate it!
I chose AC E and was confused until I wrote out my own diagram. The argument goes as such
Because these tools 1) are 5000 years old 2) were found here 3) are used to make canoes today, then we conclude these tools were used here 5000 years ago to make canoes. In order for that conclusion to be true, the tools had to have been here 5000 years ago.
AC E would be more suited if the argument went something like this:
Because these tools 1) are 5000 years old
2) were found hereand 3) used to make canoes then people made canoes 5000 years ago. This is a slightly different conclusion that requires the assumption that the tools could not have been used for anything else. I crossed out point 2 because it's not even needed to make this alternative conclusion.Basically, because the author is making an argument about these tools used 5000 years ago in a specific place, they are assuming these tools were here 5000 years ago. Nowhere in the stimulus do we have evidence presented saying the tools were definitely here 5000 years ago.