Thank you!!

#feedback - when I went to see the explanation for the two answers I got wrong, it gave a different question/answer explanation. In fact all of the explanations were the one question. When I reloaded the page - it no longer allowed me to see the drill and my responses so I could check the wrong answers.

You're making too many assumptions I think. A is about how a group changed an alien culture. But that's not what the Kayapo did - they incorporated their technology (the aesthetics) into an alien technology WITHOUT changing the alien culture or changing their own culture.

Whether or not the emigrants stayed true to their local cuisine isn't the problem. Its that they changed the practices in North America. The Kayapo never changed the culture of the west by their use of the camera. Hope this helps!

I love these explanations, it gives me confidence when I find that my reasoning was the same

Talk to yourself and ask questions.

Ex. oh really Lesky says that! wow I wonder why?

this forces you to stay engaged rather than reading it alone. hope that helps

but that feels less like he's trying to convince us and more like he's giving us information. It would feel like convincing if he said - the new adaptation adds to his story. or something that feels more like an opinion. Him getting a backstory just seems to be a fact that is conveyed to us.

6.1 and 6.2 conclusions have left me confused. The conclusions seem to be just fact, not an argument.

"However, in the recent live adaptation, Aladdin is given a new backstory that involves life in the city before he became a 'street rat'." - seems to be a fact that does not have to be backed up.

"Yet, scientists have recently discovered a new way by which the plant can absorb phosphorus, a much-needed nutrient." - again, scientists discovering a new method seems to be a fact more than argument. Any help?

I agree, I had trouble with this. I thought of it as when there are 2 premises, they seem to be interrelated somehow. Whereas when there is one premise, the two ideas seem more independent of one another. Would love to hear other thoughts.

There are other assumptions in the first statement I see. 1. A jacket is appropriate clothing for the rain. 2. You're going outside in the rain. 3. You don't want to get sick.

In the second statement I still the same assumptions. And an additional one, a weakened immune system will make you get sick.

For a stronger argument I would instead say: I am going outside where it is raining. Wearing a jacket in the rain will protect my immune system from getting sick. I don't want to get sick so I am going to wear a jacket.

The Disney argument gives two options for getting a Genie+ pass. Since we know Walt didn't prostrate himself before anyone, this includes Goofy, then the only option left is for him to have done the goat option.

The tiger argument is the next best because tigers are aggressive and cause serious injuries which means that not all mammals are suitablee to keep as pets. But it has less of a list of premises the way the Walt argument did.

The trash bin argument is the weakest because it is not definitive that because Mr. Fat Cat is on the counter licking his face, he knocked over the trash to eat the fish. There are other explanations still open.