#help In the 4th sentence, why is the predicate-object "the views" and not "scientists"

Does the major premise support the sub-conclusion too? Or does it just support the conclusion?

For 1.5, couldn't the sub-conclusion also be the conclusion? It seems like the presmises could support the sub-conclusion and the conclusion. Is it because the premises follow the sub-conclusion which shows that the sub-conclusion also supports those premises?

I don't get how acting like you're confident causes becoming genuinely confident.

Can someone help explain this one. I really do not get it.

Could someone explain why E is incorrect?

Can we consider Jack's aunt to be someone who is not benefitted by Jack's decision?

I interpreted that the archeologists concluded that discoloration depends on time/season of death. If neanderthals did migrate and the gazelle teeth were found bc they saved them for ritualistic purposes, then wouldn't the teeth have no variation in discoloration that indicates they were killed in different seasons?

I'm confused. If money that would have gone to the local economy is now being used in the mall, how would the local economy still slightly increase? Wouldn't this being drawing money away from the local economy?

Got this wrong in BR bc I got thrown off by "both doctrines are wrong" and thought we needed an NA that proves both wrong. That is not what we need though. I think I went wrong by thinking of this as an MBT and trying to prove that both are wrong when an NA just needs to be something that the author agrees with.

Look at this as an AND OR relationship. To prove the conclusion that both doctrines are wrong, you need to prove the Economic doctrine is false AND the Psychological doctrine is false. But you can prove the Economic OR the Psychological doctrine are not exclusive to weaken the conclusion since the conclusion relies on both.

If we negate A - "It is not true that the first doctrine precludes any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events", then Doctrine 1 could include that any factors, including psychological ones, are needed to explain historical events... Well the conclusion says that this Doctrine is incorrect bc there are events due to both economic and psychological forces but with negated A, Doctrine 1 can include both economic and psychological forces so it would not be true that both Doctrines are mistaken.

I hope this made sense. It definitely helps to try to write out the explanation of why this is correct.

Can we say D is correct bc it is the sufficient assumption needed to make the conclusion, "health edu is prop" true? attempts to influence behavior -> health edu is prop. And in this case we are looking for the sufficient assumption. B and C are wrong bc they don't lead to the correct conclusion?

I don't understand how you can't rule out C for the same reason we ruled out D

For me, an easy way to do this is by checking if the conclusion, in this case, "Therefore, the monarch butterfly does not migrate south in winter (x/B)," matches the sufficient. So in lawgic I would write

All Birds -> migrate south for winter A -> B

Monarch/Bird x /A

*now check, is the "/A" in the sufficient

spot? No. Ok so try the contrapositive

/B -> /A

*now is the "/A" in the sufficient? Still no.

So it is not valid that x/A -> x/B

I hope this helps sorry if it was confusing

#help. On 7.2 and 7.3 why is "humidity" and "water" not included in their respective sentences?