very poorly written

The last sentence of the second paragraph is the author's criticism of time theory. The question asks you to answer as if you were a proponent of time theory.

I thought for sure after reading the 'situation' that the principle would be something like "some endangered species can be lost for assurance of greater chance of survival of the species" ... so I was totally tripped up looking for that answer

B gang

The argument says "as long as there are distinct cultures"... B negates that condition, by placing us in a future in which "we all share the same culture" ... this can't weaken the argument because it is not meeting the condition to partake in the argument.

If it said "we will have distinct cultures but all share the same values" that would weaken the argument

yes

I looked at B for a minute, because sometimes these answers will be from an angle that I'm just not seeing. But in this case I couldn't find any reason to believe 'how numerous' the species were fits into the argument.

Is there anything wrong with a scientific study measuring change (difference) ? And is hyperactivity not a type of behavior? How would you measure hyperactivity without measuring thinking and behavior anyway?

Doesn't change the answer, just thought it was a strange way to dissect this argument.

In Most Strongly Supported it is helping me to stay away from absolute answers.

Absolutes are very hard to support, while weaker (more general) statements are easier to find support for.

"MAIN factor.." "NO small animals.." "ANY given species..." "WHENEVER climatic conditions...

Are all absolute statements

I chose A because it is a generally tepid statement, and weaker statements are easier to support. C containing the phrase "no longer" makes it more of an absolute statement than A, which is more difficult to support.

I got tripped up on this question because it never explicitly stated that the judge gave instructions to the jury ... I suppose it's just reasonable to assume that but it changed the way I read through the answers

#feedback

It is extremely disappointing that the culmination lessons of the "Conditional and Set Logic" section were not taught through video. The methods have become intensely convoluted to a point of heavily diminished returns and I have lost the plot entirely.

This is like investing 10 hours into a movie only to have to read the conclusion on a scroller.

I am also getting confused by the group 4 rules.. but I think what I need to remember is that the first NO doesn't count as a "not" (~) because it is being used as the conditional indicator, not a measure of the concept...

this doesn't make sense to me in real life but it's helping me understand these questions for now lol

Is it fair to say that if the conditional indicator is an absolute it belongs in group 2?

It helps me to remember the "hypothetical world", where we know only about the world what we are being told.

I am confused about this also.

SC→I ..is saying that being Suspect Class is sufficient for being Immutable. It also means that Immutable is necessary for being Suspect Class, which is what the reading says.

I→SC ..says that Immutable is sufficient for being Suspect Class. In turn this means that Suspect Class is necessary for being Immutable, which is not what the reading says.

So I suppose this makes sense to me first by reading the first premise backwards, and then by figuring that the opposite does not work.

I'm wondering that too. I decided to start this process in August and that timeline is not useful.

Predicate objects are seemingly chosen at random in this assignment.

I agree as well. I assumed that the answer was going to be that the paragraph was entirely contextual/observational.