reminds me The Last Ship, hard to stay focused during timed PT

Reason why A can't be a strengthener:

Because the conclusion is "depletion of ozone CAUSED amphibian population decrease"

There could exist thousands of reasons which thread amphibian population due to ozone depletion therefore UV-B being the only type of UV-B blocked by ozone can not strengthen the argument unless we make unwarranted assumption that:

"under the influence of depletion of ozone layer, amphibian population is only vulnerable to UV-B's penetration but nothing else"

which we all know is definitely not a reasonable assumption.

I struggled between B and C, and this is now I convinced myself C is a better answer:

The stimulus ask us to defend Tony while against Anna

B: This new info does make Tony's position save more money therefore this argument is sound.

C: This new info directly address the loyalties bought out by Anna, and make Anna's "save less than 5%" become weaker.

Even though B saves more money than C, but B doesn't even touch Anna's position therefore B have nothing to do to against Anna's reply.

If we switch "mainstream biological theory" with "stupid sneaky lsat theory", flaw is quite evident since mentally read will think stupid sneaky lsat theory sounds like stupid theory and will not buy it's shit however "mainstream biological theory" sounds so legit and I immediately fall into the trap take it as a universal fact.

However in other questions how do we consider the premise given is a universal accepted truth rather than a trap alluring us to presuppose its validity? can somebody help me with this?

^This

I pick E at beginning and pick E again in BR, therefore I'm trying my very best to explain why E is only a sucker choice but not the right answer:

E try to attack sub-conclusion which presents a causation relationship.

So E want to discredit this causation relation to make us think [red wine] and [lower HD] is merely a correlation.

E tried to compare lower HD between "other country" and France, in order to solidify this comparison E should also add red wine consumption relationship between "other countries" and France, but LSAC knows they can't do that, that's too obvious (typical effect without cause weakening method) which will directly weaken the sub-conclusion, so they used a Shell Game to trick us, but replacing the comparison between [[["other countries" and France]]] with [[["other countries" and North American]]] and hope we fall into their trap.

As the result I did, but now think it through, key word "North American" is not even presented in sub-conclusion, E try to attack this sub-conclusion which has nothing to do with North American, so half-way through not successfully discredit sub-conclusion's causal relationship, E now bring new element(North American) into the game which make E even more ridiculously wrong because North American is the main conclusion which includes new relationship: "Red wine and General Health," where E mention nothing about this new relationship.

As we can see now, E is bluffing, playing fire, by:

1. Fail to weaken the causal relation in subconclusion

2. Fail to attack the main conclusion however bring in main conclusion's element performing unwarranted comparison to discredit the subconclusion.

"The multi-talented star died from kidney failure and exhaustion"

In this video JY sounds like stifmeister treating customers like shit! haha!

Could you please specify "get tunnel vision"? I mean what kind of mental state I should adjust myself to "get tunnel vision"?

For example SA I'm looking at building a bridge...

Can anyone elaborate D? "some of the effects" could mean among all those evidences several of them (let's take judgement and comprehension for example) were affected before 6100m while speech function were worsen after 6100m.

Therefore brain portions get affected due to different altitude because different altitude corresponds to affect different part of brain therefore the original argument that those areas are not distinct is getting weakened.

However while typing this out I somehow saw unwarranted assumption I made in D which is try to add an positive correlation between altitude and brain functioning mechanism regarding different brain portions, which is definitely not supported anywhere in the argument and I guess that's why D was bugging me during blind review.

^This, stealing thunder application.

Same crap as PT72 S2#16, which also talks about art!

reminds me the "talking pillow" from Breaking Bad

^^Appreciate, gonna start it today, never too late:)

can someone enlighten me with simple instruction regarding how to perform meditation?