I understand needing to bridge the gap between UFOs and whether they’re extraterrestrial, but in my mind there’s also a gap between “brushing aside” requests for information (stimulus) and “withholding information” (B). That’s why I chose C, because “denying the requests” seemed to be less of a leap from “withholding information” (I guess there’s also room for just ignoring the requests which may be the most strictly accurate to “brushing aside”.)

I did initially get confused about whether the sightings had definitely occurred or not, but now I can accept that they did. But to me that still doesn’t mean definitively that there is any more information that the government may or may not be withholding. Answer Choice B diagrams as: withholding information --> established to be from other planets. I understand that if we satisfied the sufficient condition, we could guarantee that the UFOs are extraterrestrial, but I don’t feel fully convinced that “brushing aside” requests definitely satisfies that sufficient condition. Can anyone speak to this? #help

Wondering about this too, 5 years later! These explanations have been super helpful, thanks everyone. Does anyone have any additional thoughts about the distinction between the absence of a sufficient condition vs. the absence of a cause? Whenever an explanation video mentions that the absence or less of a cause can reasonably lead to the absence or less of an effect, I get a little squirmy because of everything I’ve learned from formal logic about negating sufficient conditions meaning the whole relationship is moot.

For example, 61-4-4 about air pollution and plant diseases (from the current strengthen/weaken lessons). The premises/phenomena are that there was air pollution during the Industrial Revolution and two plant diseases disappeared. The hypothesis/conclusion is that it’s likely that air pollution eradicated the ideas {air pollution =cause=> eradication}. The strengthening answer is that the diseases returned when the air became less polluted {/air pollution =cause=> /eradication}. First of all, am I diagramming that answer choice correctly, and if so, is that a legitimate way of thinking about causal relationships? I mean I guess it is because that’s what multiple videos use, but I’m just getting tripped up in comparison to formal logic. Thanks in advance for any responses!

Is there a difference here between capacity to handle traffic and actual traffic flow?

I’m hung up on how E paraphrased the conclusion. The conclusion says that global warming is unlikely to cause more frequent and more intense storms, aka “not probably”. But E says “global warming probably will not produce more frequent and more intense storms.” I know this is just reversing the order of “not” and “probably” but in my mind there’s a difference. To me, the opposite of “it’s unlikely this causation will play out” (not probably) is different from “likely to not play out” (probably not). In my mind, there’s a neutral zone. I get why E is the answer for this Conclusion question, but can someone speak to this conceptual (mis)understanding?