#help I got this question correct, but I think that what threw me off for a while was the change in language. After watching the explanation, I get that AC A is really the only one that gets at the actual argument, but, for my future reference, is there any difference between the ideas of merit and value?

#help I still dont understand how A is the correct answer. Could someone explain it to me in a different way?

So, can a prescriptive conclusion not be considered a claim because it can be considered an assumption. Is this an all around thing or just for this question? #help

Is it just a rule that you cannot run the contrapositive on a some statement?

Does anyone have an effective way of making those internal paragraph breaks in RC passages? I have tried to do it in my head, but I've found that Ill lose track of them and can lose time trying to find it again.

Hey I'm super interested in joining as well!

Is it fair to say that B and C are also incorrect because, given it's a NA question, there's no way we could say that the author is assuming something that he gives absolutely no indication. (i.e. the fact that he says "every charity" and "most charities") I feel like that requires that we assume that what he's saying those work and it has worked before without him telling us that's even close to being true.

I think I understand this based off of the example that they gave of the scooping. A‑m→B→C makes sense because if I take MOST As and scoop them into B and then ALL of B goes into C then of course most As are in C. But for this (A‑m→B‑m→C) if I scoop MOST As and put them in B then scoop MOST Bs and put them into C, there just is no guarantee that any of the As got into C. Our brains would like to say that they did, but logically we cannot make that assumption.

For #4, I said that /G→U. Would this still be correct? In my head I read it as "No grad level philosophy courses are available to undergrads." Is this logic still solid even though I negated the sufficient assumption and not the necessary?

#help Im really confused about Question 21. I picked E BECAUSE I recognized that it wasn't consistent. Was I thinking about this too much like a weaken LR question? I thought that because it said nothing about the photosynthetic efficiencies that would make it the least consistent.

I'm a little confused in how you can see the change in perspective from the first paragraph to the second. After watching the explanation I just know that I would still look at that first sentence of the second paragraph and associate it with what the economists were saying before the paragraph break.

#help

In a question, if I see the word "no" do I always do group 4 negate the necessary? I'm confused about that and dont want to start doing it when it isnt necessary.

#help

If the language in the last conditional was "SA -s-> GAR" would that mean that you have to change the quantifier in the conditional that you have to figure out to SA -s-> F. I guess my question really boils down to, do you have to use the same quantifier when you're writing in that conditional?

#help I dont fully understand how D doesn't weaken the argument by saying that the argument made by the other people is correct.

What do you think you would do for making a low res summary on an online test?

I'm interested!