B weakens the argument that marijuana can cause cancer because the argument relies on only one component of Marijuana (THC) causing cancer.

B opens up the argument to say "hey, THC may cause cancer, but LLC, LLP, and XVU are all found in marijuana as well and they're actually great at fighting cancer, thus neutralizing the THC" and ultimately weakening the argument.

This is the first time that I've seen a video without a comment. So hello.

A 180 and a 177? Talk about a power couple!

Yeah, f this question. "On balance" sounds so similar to "when balanced"

This was a great analysis!

I was struggling with this same issue! But the more I think about it, the more I believe that the subconclusion does not actually explain a phenomenon. It gives a concluding sentence, but the actual explanation comes from the sentence before the subconclusion.

"But a politician's activity consists largely of the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voters' lives."

^^ That would explain the phenomenon of people voting for politicians who they resent, whereas the last sentence offers a concluding statement.

This is super helpful!

I was also stuck between B and C but ultimately chose B.

C is incorrect because it mistakenly assumes that an employee's general participation in a conversation is the key to improved efficiency, whereas B correctly states that the key to improved efficiency is having an employee participate in generating new ideas.

Conversation participation ≠ idea generation. An employee can participate in a conversation yet provide no new ideas, which would not indicate improved efficiency.

This is a great explanation, thanks!

Remember that we are not trying to attack or negate the premise, but rather the bridge between the premises and the conclusion.

The stimulus references skills that should be "introduced" in school. When something is initially introduced, it is learned.

Choice A references "REGULAR training", implying that it occurs beyond the initial learning phase. Contrastingly, Choice C calls for "learning" a skill. Because Parent Q concludes that learning these skills is pointless, Choice C directly counters that claim.

Wow this one really got to me. It's amazing how most of my errors spawn from me just not reading closely! "Urban pollution" is not equal to global pollution.

I was confused about this as well and agree that "some" is pretty weak language. Just become "some" newspaper editors believe education is unnecessary doesn't mean that the actual job prospects are weakened/unchanged for those with a journalism degree. One or two editors may believe having a journalism degree is unnecessary, but every other editor may believe a degree is necessary.

#help I understand why chances A-D are incorrect, but do not understand why E is correct.

If this plant emerged as the result of endosymbiosis, then are we supposed to infer that it was an entirely different plant before endosymbiosis occurred? Couldn't it be the case that cholorawhatever existed, went through endosymbiosis, and remained the same plant, just with additional genes?

Answer 'B' is correct because

flashy look and emphasized illustrations -> lack of substance -> short-lived books

I was between A and B but ultimately used the word "because" to narrow down the premise and conclusion.

Correct Premise: BECAUSE the city should attract more residents,

Correct Conclusion: The city should renovate its train station.

When flipped around, it doesn't sound right.

Incorrect Premise: Because the city should renovate its train station,

Incorrect Conclusion: The city should attract more residents.

I'm interested! Based in NYC