If P ←some→ NOT/active is true, wouldn't the negation of this be P→Active? And wouldn't that mean our some claim would actually be c ←s→active?

The assumption in this one is so sneaky and I read right past it. it is literally a two word assumption at the end of the conclusion sentence.

So, with causal strengthen questions I thought we were looking to deny some alternative hypothesis? What causal hypothesis are we denying here? Are we simply denying the hypothesis that something other than exposure to heavy metals caused the bacteria's resistance to the antibiotics. In other words, is it the case that the right answer will not always explicitly deny an alternative hypothesis, but be more subtle about it like it is in this question?

Sorry if that's a bad question I just need a little clarification, lol.

Right because CNN and MSNBC arent equally as bias as FOX. Lol.

Doesn't this question kind of conflate ethics violations with performance as mayor? One can think someone's performance as mayor is good whilst still thinking they are guilty of some ethics violations.

Am I the only one finding these to be the easiest questions so far? I feel like main conclusion and MSS questions may be harder for me. Lol.

Just because something is not uncomfortable, does not mean it is necessarily comfortable. Is it not possible for something to be neither uncomfortable nor uncomfortable?

Lol, usually I am averaging between 2 to 3 minutes on most questions. But I somehow got this one right in 28 seconds.

Wait, but how does it weaken the argument. You can still be successful with the one drug even if other marketing campaigns in the company are hurt. Isn't this kind of irrelevant to the argument?

I understand E is the right answer, but it does seem like a bit of an assumption about the real world and our own biases to assume that just because small design companies won prestigious awards that makes them "superior." Especially since this could be a matter of opinion (what is or is not superior/inferior and on what basis we judge these things). There is nothing explicitly in the passage that says or even implies that those that win prestigious awards are "superior." So how exactly is this a reasonable assumption?

"No sales technique can succeed that does not get the potential buyer to emotionally connect with the product being sold."

Could someone please explain how to tell the difference in this question between a negate necessary indicator vs a pure negation. For example, I understand why the "no" at the beginning of the sentence is functioning as a negate necessary indicator. But for the word "not," isn't this also a necessary negate indicator? Or do we just make it a negation since we are grouping this all together as the predicate?

Maybe I am just overthinking this and making it more complicated then I need to.

Hello, does anyone have any advice on how to draw on the text of the passage on the computer, or is it best to just use scrap paper when working through these questions? Ah, I miss the days of written exams!

This argument is a real hoot.

If all there is a correlation, are we evaluating these to show the best possible causal relationship? Because if correlation does not equal causation, are we just trying to figure out what the most likely causal relationship is even though we cannot be certain? #help.

Can someone please explain question 3. How exactly is irrationality a form of negation. It's a negative word sure. If it said not rational, I would understand, but irrational?