i chose A becausue the last sentence of the first paragraph says it is "a potential contributing factor to the continued decline of ocean fishery." thus bc its a POENTIAL CONTRIBUTING fFACTOR it would not be caused entirely? #help

I spent so much time on this lmfao and I still don't think I understand

This was the most terrible passage I've ever come across

The conclusion IS satnavs exist so they save fuel and promote safety.

can anyone make sense of the last sentence of the first paragraph it is frying my brain

This being Q1 is crazy

Is it wrong to diagram this with the "some" arrow going both ways?

i spent 16 minutes on this question. i get tripped up which to make sufficient and none of the ACs matched

can someone please explain more when JY was doing the negations in the videos? slashing and equivalent versus contradiction statements

@MaxThompson Do you have to negate the "all" into a "some?" I just negated the "not" to make it that they WOULD improve

Is AC D explanation wrong? It says "the conclusion makes a claim about the set of consumers who don't bother acquiring such information. That they are behaving irrationally." I thought the stim is asserting that they ARE thereby behaving RATIONALLY. #help

@sheadongraham that's what i did too. lawgic made it unnec confusing tbh

@sashaaronson2703 this is how i solved it easily

my head hurts so much

For D, i thought weakening questions will not attack the premise. Doesn't AC D do just that, yet the explanation still says it weakens?