same !

Astronauts - see movement + inner ear says no movement = sickness

Voyagers- see movement + inner ear says movement = less likely to be sick

I find a problem with the assumption made about the inner ear of the voyagers telling them there is movement.

According to the information provided in the premise, we would assume that their inner ear is telling them there is no movement in AC A or we could not assume what their inner ear is doing at all in which case we could not draw a conclusion about their motion sickness.

Where do we find support to assume that the voyagers in the ship have inner ears that are telling them there is movement?

Please # help, if possible

I'd like to note this because I didn't see it mentioned in the comments below

I did choose E in the BR but during the test I chose D

"Province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the 600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province"

The question stem says "the conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the..." (I read this line to imply that alternatives could exist so when I read D and it said "instead of refunding the money" I didn't automatically cross it out because the question seemed to allow new options by asking us to finish the sentence ...

I read D to be an alternative option for helping the province to create a net increase in spending to stimulate the provinces economy.

If instead of giving the money directly to tax payers or to workers the province could invest in new construction projects that would create new jobs and thus, stimulate the economy.

You would have to assume though, that the stimulation of the economy through new jobs would result in a long-term increase of more than the 600 million initially spent by the province.

(I think in economics thats called the multiplier effect) - if you invest into the economy people will have that money and spend some and eventually the money will increase by X %)

So, that's just another way that I didn't see commented below of how I understood the question and answer choice D.

During blind review though, I realized that E had less assumptions so I chose it over D but I can still see how D can have this reading and potentially lead to weaken the argument. If E were not present I think D would be the best answer choice (even with its assumptions).

If anyone has thoughts it would be great to talk it out on this point - I think it's an interesting take? But I could be wrong ! : )

A mistake I made with choosing E - In recent years, profits in the book publishing industry have been declining.

Conclusion: Publishers are more interested in making money

Reasoning: Well if profits are declining in the industry then it cannot be that their motive is still more interested in making money obviously

^ I guess faulty but I can still kind of see how it might stand other than saying that the assumption I make is an "overstretch"

Thoughts ??

same.

This is just me thinking out loud here but I guess the assumption the argument is making somehow that I still can't read into is that when they say "deter" they mean not licence them? not to deter them from irresponsibility and us assume that they will then become responsible once the board is in place but I don't think that's clear in the stimulus, I feel like you have to read that in?

If anyone can chime in it would be greatly appreciated

I had the same thought ..

lol poor guy (JY), all he expected was fidelity...

Thanks so much JY! 😀🙌🏼🙌🏼

Hey Jessica, I heard that one 😄 Ty so much for replying! I think, I think that JY mentioned another too! But I really appreciate your response 😀👍🏼🌸

JY! 🙈 yesterday’s meeting was great. Near the end you mentioned a good book/read that helps get a grasp of some basic economic concepts. What was that? Do you recall? 😄

Thank You!

Ty :)

Is there a zoom meeting tomorrow?

Is this sentence a premise - > "Recently, however, three-million-year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under the ice sheet covering central Antarctica"

I realize that "however", demonstrates the beg of the authors argument and it's clear that the "severe climatic warming or volcanic activity" supports the temporary melting of the sheets but just in terms of functionality- I'm curious about what role that sentence plays in the argument since it's technically considered part of the argument, as pointed out by the video.

Also, I don't clearly understand what the significance is of the fossil being found previously only in ocean-floor sediments (I got the answer correct even though I didn't understand this). To me it didn't matter where they previously found the fossil, the only thing that mattered is that the fossil was found under the ice sheet that was three million years old. - Any help to clarify this? I have a hunch that it plays a significant role in fully comprehending the passage!

Thanks ! :D

Hello - how useful do you think this course would be if attending a Canadian law school?

Thanks @wraith985-4026 , I really appreciate the time you took to write all that up.

You can tell you care cuz of the amount of detail and depth that went into it - I really appreciate it ! : ) What you're saying, makes sense to me - ty so much!!

@wraith985-4026 - thanks so much this is good feedback.

Now I have another question:

It's always sunny in Philidalphia

A.) the correct lawgic is P->S and /S->/P

According to lawgic I wrote it incorrectly as

B.) S->P and /P-> /S

but thinking outside the box even if I wrote it incorrectly, when I read them both outloud they sound like they're saying the same thing?

A - In Phil. its always Sunny & if its not sunny, I'm not in phil

B - Its always Sunny in Phil & I'm not in phil so it's not sunny

From a contextual point of view, if i'm reasoning through these do not A and B say the same thing and can they both lead me to understand what's occurring logically in the sentence ?

Do you understand what I'm saying ? :$

Why did he write WAmc-> P and not P --> WAmc

If you write it the second way the opposite would be Not WAmc --> Not P

#help (Added by Admin)

What do you do when its the vocab that hits you? I didn't/don't know what autoimmune disease is - couldn't make the connection that white blood cells are supposed to help you fight off viruses etc and then didn't also make the connection that an "anti-viral" such as gamma was similar to the functions that white blood cells have because of lack of knowledge of the definitions.

#help ... = (

Thats a frustrating problem to have ...

suggestions ?

Hey, so I think this is a legit concern about the sentence structure

The last sentence says: It is almost impossible to make drivers with a larger number of demerit points more responsible drivers

Can we assume that the author means ...drivers with a large number of demerit points AND convicted serious offences ..more responsible drivers?

Since it didn't, in my head I was working with three parties / outcomes

A. Drivers with demerit points

B. Drivers convicted with serious offences

C. Drivers with demerit pts + Convicted serious offences

So given the sentence, I assumed the author meant that only A drivers could not become more responsible drivers not

C drivers could not become more responsible drivers ....

Can someone explain this to me please ? :$

#help (Added by Admin)

LOL "alcohol food, yah that's delicious" 

JY makes me laugh !

Okay, I'll deff take a look - ty so much for answering : )