Desparate Housewives of New Jersey LOL

same. how is that fair? you have to bring in outside knowledge.

Can someone give a better reason why (C) is wrong given the reasoning above? I know why (D) is right, but I'd like more of an explanation over C.

Same!

Same

I think the true distinction between words vs. music tripped us up because it's so not intuitive.

Same! I see how I was wrong because I was referencing the third type of theoretical opera and not the singer's opera, but it really seemed at the time that I was right.

#help #feedback I am wondering this too!

I realized this is a glitch. Every time there haven't been time marks I've just refreshed the page, and they're there!

Basically, ACME is trying to claim that they are not negligible for the accident because they were entirely ignorant/unaware of the danger hazards of having the switch at knee-level. The commentator is arguing that they are negligible, meaning, that they were in fact aware & not ignorant. Therefore, the excerpt is a premise which provides evidence to the conclusion which refutes Acme's claim that they were ignorant, and therefore, according to the commentator, they are negligible.

In order to have have been unaware of the danger before the wreck occurred, that means ACME would have not known prior to the wreck. Therefore, to argue that they are negligible, you have to argue that they did know it was dangerous before the wreck.

Hope this helps!

I also fell for D and discarded E early on, however, when choosing E I was stuck b/t that and A, and neither QUITE felt right to me. I realize every time it doesn't really click and feel right, I get the NA question wrong. If you weren't 100% positive on D when you fell for it, maybe the best option is to take a breath and revisit answer choices even if they were discarded. I'm going to try this, since it does make sense to me after this lesson why it is E.

The argument is trying to conclude that stars are younger than previously thought. In the stimulus it says the farther away you are from a star, the greater its intrinsic brightness. We need this to relate to the age, because right now its not telling us anything about the age. So, if the farther away a star is, the brighter it is, and (C) the brighter you are, the younger you are, that means the farther away the star is, the younger you are! That bridges the gap between distance, brightness, and age, which is crucial to the argument.

Hope that helps!

#Help #Feedback

I got this question, but these lessons say to always FIRST identify the mode of reasoning used. I am not 100% sure of that here, is it still cost-benefit analysis?

Let me know! Thanks!

Because then you cannot analogize HUMAN DNA (which is very different than Neanderthals) to HOMO SAPIEN DNA (which if true, similar to Neanderthal), in order to draw the conclusion that they could not have interbred due to Modern Day Human DNA being dissimilar to Neanderthal DNA. It destroys the support structure of this argument, which is using reasoning by analogy.

If our DNA was really different than Homo Sapiens DNA, which was more similar to Neanderthal DNA, then how can you use our DNA being different than Neanderthal DNA to PROVE that Neanderthals & Homo Sapiens did not interbreed? You can't.

Hope this helps!

Bc this is reasoning by analogy. They are saying in the past people failed every time trying to domesticate wild animals they thought would be worth domesticating. So, if today domesticating wild animals is MUCH easier than in the past, then it destroys the argument's analogous support...because then you can't compare these two. 

Hope this helps!

It's tricky but if you really read into the conclusion, it is describing how you should interpret the word "love" in the context of a PROMISE (i.e. marital vows.)

The conclusion stating, "No one should take love in this context to be referring to feelings" is another way of saying, "no one should interpret love to be referring to feelings within a promise" (because here, the context we're talking about, is within the context of making a promise.)

Therefore, (D) is really the only one that acknowledges the conclusion we are trying to address which is not about how to make a promise, for example, but instead, is about how someone should INTERPRET a promise. Therefore, it is capable of reaching the correct conclusion. Furthermore, the sufficient condition is "in such a way that makes no sense," which can be triggered by our argument since it says that making promises based on feelings makes no sense. Therefore, answer D bridges the two concepts.

Hope this helps!

The Rule is still targeting the wrong group. It's telling us what "one" has to do, but not what the government can or cannot do. The conclusion needs us to find a rule that results in the government not being justified in silencing the nutrition groups.

This is a cost-benefit analysis. The stimulus lays out the benefits (PROs) of starting a new marketing campaign to "save" the product, but does not explicitly write out any of the costs (CONS) to starting this marketing campaign. (D) States a cost of the new marketing campaign which is that undertaking this new marketing campaign could damage the company's overall position.

This means that if you were the one making this decision, that would help to lessen your chance of undertaking the marketing campaign. You might still do it, but the answer merely weakens this argument.

Try thinking of cost-benefit as pros vs cons. Hope that helps!

You have to think about what is going beyond the original purpose of a copyright. If author's are willing to circulate their ideas without financial reward (meaning, also without a copyright), then this is not about the copyright itself going beyond its purpose. Does that help?

You have to think about how the copyright is going beyond its purpose of circulating ideas bc of the financial reward incentive, but the other answers are talking about other tangential ideas that aren't directly about the copyright itself.

Hince

If it is true that those who usually stretch before jogging tend to due so BECAUSE they are prone to injuries, then it is irrelevant that the 2 groups had the same amount of injuries, because the "stretching group" already were more prone to injuries in the first place, so it's not an ideal experiment between RANDOMIZED groups. Hope this helps!

Yes, it matters because it can be TRUE that people BELIEVE something, but that something may not be true. For example, lots of people believe conspiracy theories & saying that "people believe in..." something is true, but that doesn't make the conspiracy theories true themselves. So, the answer choice specifies that what they believe is in fact, true.

Hi - Can anyone explain this section?

_Confusing sufficiency for necessity:

Only birds migrate south in winter. The monarch butterfly is not a bird. Therefore, the monarch butterfly does not migrate south in winter.

Then, in Lawgic, the translation would be:

B → A

x/A

_

x/B

That's valid. In fact, that's the contrapositive argument form. The only problem is that you made up your own premise B → A. The actual premise is A → B. You confused sufficiency for necessity.

_

If it's valid, why did we confused sufficiency for necessity? It might be helpful to use symbols that relate to the text, because we don't know what is being assigned to A & B?

Same, also confused!

Pretty sure contrapositives have the same meaning as the original statement, while negation is a different concept, where you're denying the relationship. Contrapositive is more like saying the relationship in a different way.