ugh this was hard even in BR, just need to focus on the core of the argument. I didn't pay attention to the word "IT" which refers to the BILL.

Conclusion: the BILL clearly has created jobs

Why: Because Plastonica qualified for the incentives from the bill

it implies that the bill was what caused the opening of the factory and thus created jobs. We NEED the assumption to be that Plastonica opened their factory here because of the bill, we need to establish causation

Weird question but was able to eliminate B,D,E fairly quickly

D- out because we don't know for sure if intent to convey more is always the case, it could just be a social norm to speak like this

I was torn between A and C because they seemed similar and picked C on a timed run. In BR I realized that C talks about word (singular) whereas the argument talks about the meaning of words as a collective. This therefore makes C way too narrow to be the right answer for this MSS question

interested!

During timed test I was stuck on A and B and realized it was time to move on and chose B even though I was suspect about the strong language of sufficient condition.

In BR I was able to realize that a good way to eliminate B is that the argument doesn't even require the condition of being a good leader and therefore we don't care about what is a sufficient condition for a good leader. The argument is trying to say that comparatively Thompson is a BETTER leader, which doesn't necessarily have to mean a good leader if all the other candidates suck

Realizing this, and comparing to AC A, it becomes clear that A attacks the relevance of the premise the most and is therefore the most weakening

In blind review, something I noticed the second time around was the shift in meaning behind Handel's music being based on religious texts VS Vierne's divinely inspired organ symphony invoking a religious feeling .

My thinking was that Handel's music was different because it explicitly incorporated religion (religious texts) into lyrics of the music whereas Vierne's symphony could sound religious (divinely inspired) but does not necessarily involve religious lyrics

hope this helps!

James' argument: Assumes because complex issues are discussed, they are understood by the public

Maria: Concedes that Reade is popular but:

1) not because of discussion of complex issues

2) because voters think Reade is trustworthy/competent

What we're looking for to strengthen Marias argument is something that will boost up one of the 2 points made above

Prephrase:

Point 1: Voters don't really understand what Reade is talking about or the complex issues discussed (this is what choice D touches upon)

Point 2: Exit polls show that a majority of voters think Reade is trustworthy/competent (this is what choice E touches upon, but some voters could be just one voter and does not provide the strength to be the right answer. If some was replaced by most, this would be a right answer)

When going through this during a timed run, I immediately picked up on a possible correlation-causation flaw being made. Just because the fine raising happened around the same time as violation drops doesn't mean it was the fine that caused the drop. It could be other things.

What was attractive about A (I picked this during timed) was that it sounded right because it picked up on the cause issue BUT it had the elements wrong. Keeping this correlation-causation flaw in mind E, also picks up on this causation flaw and says maybe the argument didn't rule out another highly probable cause

Picking up on this helped me stay focused and not get distracted by outside information or additional assumptions about the garage that was built

explanations like this one really keep you going when it gets rough :')

had a very tough time deciding between D and E because of most vs none. The mapping was almost identical besides the narrower definition of none. Looking through the comments we definitely need the most in D as none of the large dairies would be far too strict to get us home on this SA connection

just leaving a comment here for the appropriate timing coming across this question in 2021

I had difficulty confirming it was D because I was debating if the claim in question was a conclusion or sub conclusion. I used the therefore test in this case to confirm and move on although it took me more time to come to this than I would have liked

So glad a gut feeling intuition finally came through on an LR question. A seemed like a very cookie cutter part-whole AC I've seen times before, I just didn't know how exactly to apply it to the argument yet.

In my first pass through, I knew the flaw had something to do with the logistics of the testing but couldn't quite isolate it yet. I read A and kept it open until I found a better AC or eliminated everything else

B: eliminated because of the "buy" and expensive- we don't care about the monetary the test is strictly taste

C: this was tricky and caught that the claim was ONLY on colas tested

D: packaging? we don't care, only taste matters

E: other beverages like OJ? who cares?

Only in BR was I able to explain why A was correct by drawing out the same example as JY and realizing, Cola 1 may have kicked ass but is dragged down in the generalization of the other wack colas

Hi! Also interested as well