#help is it just me or does anyone else feel that this question requires us to make a lot of assumptions?

in my opinion, AC C is worded terribly and should have been worded differently to solve the discrepancy. We have to assume that the imported species recovered, but the stimulus and AC C don't allow us to make this assumption. It just tells us that the imported species died.

Okay? So what?

Also, just because the endangered oyster species hadn't recovered doesn't mean that the imported oyster species did. Even if the imported species live at the expense of the endangered native species, I'm struggling to see how AC C explains this.

#question I find that this is the case for various questions where my translations look a little different from what JY had drawn but I still got the right answer.. is that okay?

for this question i mapped out:

un-edu → econ. weak

/un-edu → commit-pub-edu.

---- ---- --- -- -- -- --- -- - -- - -- ----

commit-pub-ed → /econ. weak

when reading the answers I mapped them out with numbers (because it's quicker). For AC (B) I got:

1 → 2

/1 → 3

--- --- - -- - --- - -- --

3 → /2

how? In a room full of people wearing 5 inch heels, there's also bound to be variability between their heights. similarly, there's variability between the dimensions of the yards. The change is "uniform" in the sense that they all lost the same amount of area. Maybe not relative to the yards themselves but to the entire neighbourhood. If everyone were to take their heels off, they'd lose the same amount of height.

I think the example was great.

shouldn't the conclusion say: glass of milk -c→ lower bp

- I'm confused as to why this isn't the case, help!

did you do BR? if not, the question you got wrong during the timed drill will say very high priority.

I struggled between B and D during the drill but still ended up picking B both in the drill and BR. My reasoning was:

*Domain: Germany

rule 1: only neighbouring country

rule 2: has resources to resuscitate economies

[missing principle]

-- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----

should begin aiding

As you can see, the conditions (rules) in the premises are sufficient for the conclusion. The sufficient needs to be triggered in order for the consequences to be delivered. Since the rules (premises) are sufficient, and "any" is a Group 1 sufficient condition indicator, I chose B over D.

If anyone has another way of explaining this I'd also like to know! I watched the video to see if I reasoned this answer correctly.

This really helps, tysm! :)

4/5, got the weakening question wrong which is my worst area in general.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how they attempt weakening questions? I'd really appreciate it!

I chose E because I didn't want to make the assumption in A that less thieves = less thefts. How do we know when we've made the right assumption? I thought we were supposed to be avoiding them.

#feedback

I think that: "Then place each answer on the spectrum based how much support it's deriving from the stimulus."

should be: "Then place each answer on the spectrum based on how much support it's deriving from the stimulus."

I'm not entirely sure.. perhaps someone else might know?

It's really not that deep.. But I find that I am more likely to remember the death-related examples because of how bizarre they are.

I think the idea is that the statement in Q6 is a comparative claim. It compares the rate at which small animals move to the rate at which larger animals do, in which smaller animals are faster.

To negate this claim, we need to deny the relationship between the rate at which small and large animals move in comparison to each other.

Thus the negation is: "It's not the case that small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can."

This negation is still up for interpretation as it implies that small animals may move just as fast as or slower than large animals.