Evidence that it did not occur? No, the cases are saying that these are instances of it occurring...

#feedback #help

Q26: How is this not clear approval, look at paragraph/area 35, the last sentence... That's full on approval.

#feedback #help

Q24: Freud didn't say that the Fairytales are fantastic, he scolds them, so how is this right at all??

Question 14. It's tentative in its claims about whether the fingerprint theory is reliable or not, but it's strong in it's claims that we don't know whether we can rely on it or not. Question needs to be revised and to be slightly more specific.

I am going to agree with natemanwell1 here. It depends on what you are doing, and how much time you have before your official test. My opinion is that if you are rushing through difficult questions, you might have had a chance to logically think through the problem and get it right if you had not rushed. In that case, getting in the habit of mastering those questions without time can allow you to then speed up later. If you are training speed and understanding, it becomes difficult. If you are at a point where you understand enough but take too much time on a question because you are second guessing. Considering finding out if your gut reaction is correct, or if you really do need more time to understand the answer choices. In the latter case, it is still about understanding and not stamina or speed.

Don't do lawgic on this question. Simply think about it practically.

The stem says: X causes Y. If thats true, then this instances produces A.

In my example I saw of X causing Y, there was no A. Therefore X causing Y doesn't produce A.

What's assumed is that his experiment or example he/she witnessed is universal. That answer choice E.

#feedback In the case of A, so what? It doesn't even lend credence to an explanation why that would mean drug companies shouldn't let consumers know about all interactions. D on the other hand explains that these drug companies don't have the burden of labelling all interactions because they don't know them, so how could they label them??

I literally missed the 'northern' part in C, so I just thought it said Levant...

I definitely screwed myself on the math here

I don't see how this makes E any less true. It seems to me that A and E equally make the argument vulnerable.

E says that the causal connection is false, namely that particular cases of cancer are due to, or caused by the factors listed at the end. The first sentence explains that this conclusion is false, because it's simply based on a lack of evidence of these factors contributing to cancer. How is E not correct here??

The other 10% or so is Cx-3s

Yup, I agree. That's why I chose B here, since the conclusion acts as if avoiding dairy will indeed yield a better chance at good health.

Literally 2 questions ago, J.Y. said that ACs that say 'fail to consider' or 'does not consider' X/Y/Z are almost always wrong, since the stimulus doesn't cover everything under the sun, so of course it fails to consider X/Y/Z. Come to find out, it's one of the right answers here......

This just seems like a weak argument for your case, and that's coming from someone who agrees with you.

Sorry J.Y. this ain't a 5 star, no way...

Uh, but E doesn't talk about rational consumers, so isn't E irrelevant to the subset of consumers that are rational??

SA answer choices in reality do not make perfect sense, since if it is a causal logic stimulus, then you could actually pick something that strengthens premises leading to the sub-conclusion that supports the conclusion. Why? Because the sub-conclusion already supports the conclusion if we choose C even... That's why this is frustrating.

C allows one to conclude that Love in this context is not referring to feelings, since Love isn't restricted to feelings.

Because of this, here is a tip; Strengthening, PSA, and SA answer choices typically talk about the last premise or sub-conclusion, and it's relation to the conclusion. So even if C could be right here, they are looking for D.

I am so lost, how on earth does D weaken in any sense?

If we are to take the spectrum of support, it doesn't weaken nor strengthen. It most definitely portrays that they used them for something other than hunting, but in no way way is a counter-point to the conclusion that they could be used for aesthetic purposes.

I totally missed the "for those who receive them" part when speaking about patients with drugs. So the stimulus seemed so weird.

I thought less was an equivocation on enough... So, just because our atmosphere holds in less heat now than it used to doesn't mean it held in enough back then to allow water to be the case, instead of it being frozen. So, you can't say that even if it was dimmer, there could still be water.

Does this make sense? That's why I chose C, since C seems to bring in new data that undermines the discrepancy so as to resolve it. I get that it doesn't address the dimness part of the stimulus, but I didn't think A did either.

For those confused about why E is right, look at it like this:

(SR) Safety Report Says: Deaths went down, because laws went up (stricter laws). So laws prevent death.

(CR) Certain City's Report Says: Laws went up, Deaths were the same (no change). So, laws don't prevent death.

Resolve the discrepancy. What's the discrepancy though?

It isn't how deaths are caused by X/Y/Z, but how they are prevented by a law. Laws don't cause accidents, they are designed to prevent them. The stimulus is about prevention, NOT cause of death

In RRE, you assume every answer is true:

A) Speed increased = Counteracts preventative law in SR -> Resolved, explains why SR doesn't match up with CR.

B) New data on death = More death -> Resolved, explains why SR doesn't match up with CR.

C) More people = Higher chance of crashes. Higher chance = more death -> Resolved, explains why SR doesn't match up with CR.

D) SR's Law Passed ≠ SR's Law Enforced. /Enforced = /Prevention in SR -> Resolved, explains why SR isn't the same data as CR.

E) Doesn't resolve the discrepancy because it just tells us how the deaths are caused, NOT how the law prevents deaths. Actually, it shows that the law in SR didn't prevent deaths according to CR, so the evidence in SR now becomes more confusing. Not Resolved, explains cause of deaths, nothing about the law.

I could be wrong, but this is what I got in BR.

Ain't no way this is a 4 star

I literally read property as physical property, as in, land ownership -_-

Don't see how E adds anything new. That conclusion was already found in the Principle applied to the Application, so E is not needed...