Another way to think of this question: the overall flaw is whole ≠ part. The conclusion makes a general statement and backs it up with one specific example. So a way to weaken the support would be to show that maybe Ms. Garon is unrepresentative of the whole/an exceptional case.

I ruled out the last sentence as irrelevant when I realized that the conclusion is about "traditional classroom education" (and all the conditional logic links up to that fact)

Whereas the last sentence is just about "the traditional classroom"

not sure if this is right, but it helped me see clearly the S.A.

Hey JY, I just wanted to comment since I didn't see anyone else say this, but I don't think it's very appropriate nor kind to use the phrase "bitch about." I know it's commonly used and accepted by a lot of people, but I think you could get your point across just the same if you said "complain"

I had a hard time understanding why D was the correct answer, but I think to put it concisely: Fewer time eating at home = Fewer minutes overall to prep good dinners

I still don't really understand what the second part of C means "...when none of the other drivers involved are violating the speed limit." Could anyone help explain how it contributes to being a necessary assumption?

#help (Added by Admin)

I was also almost tricked by A too, but after comparing A with D, "expanding" ≠ "as wide as possible." "As wide as possible" is more aligned with the stim's description "exceeds a certain size" whereas "expanding" could literally mean a group that started with 0 members and gained 3.

A could also be wrong because it compares an expanding group with one that is "numerically stable" but we don't know anything about groups with numerical stability. All we know is that there are groups that exceed a certain size vs. groups that do NOT exceed a certain size (which doesn't necessarily mean "numerically stable")

Another reason why B is wrong could be that it says that the expert witness fudges data to "accord with the prosecution's case." However, it seems that the expert witness is actually working in favor of the defendant because the stim says "the stained area was much less than the expected 9.5 cm2" which implies that the prosecution probably made a case around the blood being around 9.5 cm2. So, the expert witness' conclusion that the drop stains "much less" than the expected amount actually helps the defendant. If the witness was trying to help the prosecution, they wouldn't provide numbers that help protect the defendant.

This might be a bit to infer, but just wanted to provide an alternative explanation in case anyone else was struggling to understand why B was wrong.

another reason why you could rule out B is that if negated to say

"the govt is NOT responsible for some unforeseen consequences of its policies."

it doesn't entirely wreck the argument. The argument could still stand bc it could swim in the pool with the other some consequences that the govt is responsible for

Also very interested if you still have room! Thanks so much for offering this!

I'm a bit confused how C doesn't attack the premise. The argument is specifically about the "many species that would be extinct 2000 years later"

so if C is saying that majority of those species survived, how does this not deny the premise?

#help