Update, after all that, I found another explanation that references lines 55-58, which say that impartiality results from the deliberation of informed, opinionated, and curious people. Mass media coverage could potentially increase those 3 qualities and thereby improve court cases. But sheesh

5 is definitely and demonstrably lame lol

I was between C and D and picked D even though the author said you shouldn’t just throw out a method (ie. voir dire) willy nilly without coming up with an alternative solution to replace it. So that’ll show me to pick answers I know I have a problem with.

But I also still have a problem with C, even though I now would pick it after POE. I feel like C is a bit of circular reasoning... It’s saying that mass media coverage could have the potential benefit of strengthening juries’ decision processes in light of the current prevalence of mass media coverage. The way I read that is that the reason or at least one reason (kind of feels like the only reason?) that mass media coverage could benefit us is because mass media coverage already exists. Well, what if there weren’t already mass media coverage, hypothetically? Would it be a benefit to initiate it? I do kind of get/agree with the pragmatism that since it does exist (ignoring my hypothetical), we should acknowledge it so we can deal with it more effectively. But the benefit is in bolstering a jury's representation of the community it’s meant to serve, not about any particular element of that representation. To me it’s like saying the jury shouldn’t discount people with X attribute because the greater community has a lot of that X attribute, so therefore it’s beneficial to court cases for that X attribute to exist in the community in the first place. As opposed to it being beneficial for juries to include that X attribute (in order to reflect the community). I’m not sure it’s any more or less beneficial to the judicial process for a community to have any one attribute or another. But the way I’m reading it, D is saying that it’s beneficial for X attribute (mass media coverage) to exist in general, so it feels circular.

Then again, like carania pointed out, I guess it’s better to choose vague and shoddy over definitely wrong. But still, can anyone speak to this seeming circularity? Am I wrong about that? #help

#help

I also chose E because I do think I glossed over the line that says the witness recall (outcome) is equivalent, but more so because my overall takeaway was that eye-closure is ideal/preferable for all of the other reasons discussed (eg. less training, fewer errors, etc). So when I was looking for answers, I was looking for one with a superior and inferior option because I guess I was thinking more comprehensively.

So...

Question: is the key with matching the passage to answer choice B to just focus on the witness recall/health benefits and how those are equivalent between the combo and solo options? And ignore the comprehensive preferability of the solo eye-closure option?

Upon further re-reading of E (which HopefullyHLS mentioned already) I see that even with this apparently incorrect interpretation, E has it backwards. So I shouldn’t have chosen it anyway lol

But I’ll post this question anyway because I’m still curious about whether to focus on just the one aspect of equivalence vs. the overall preferability of one option.

Thanks!

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?