Would the principle that Evan critiqued not be ONLY the lack of evidence = no evidence part of the stim? Why is Evans's response to be on the side of caution also in the answer choices if that is his response to the principle, not the principle in and of itself?

Why is this not considered an Assumption Gap question?

#Help. I understand why A is correct, and I chose A because it read like a basic assumption we had to make, but I don't know why D is wrong. When I negated D I read it as: these plants could be studied AND substances will not be discovered. I found this confusing; if the whole point of preserving these forests is to allow medicine to be developed from plants, but studying the plants will not lead to the discovery/eventual development of medicine, then why do we need to preserve the forests? I went against D just because I thought well scientists don't have to be the ONLY ones that could discover the substances, it could be someone else.

I picked C after POE but still do not understand why it is correct. The condition was that there has to be widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is. C says experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are. The condition was clear in saying they have to agree about how reliable they are, so it does not leave room for the assumption C is stating. To me it feels like C is directly contradicting a premise. If the premise simply said they have to agree period, then I understand how C would be correct in making the distinction between agreement in general and agreement about the specific level of reliability. Can someone please help?

#feedback #help

If the analyst reasons that the airline should focus on the comfort of leisure travelers because they purchase 80% of tickets and C states that comfort is not the primary concern of leisure travelers, would that not undermine the argument because the stimulus assumed that leisure travelers value comfort just as much as business travelers? I interpreted C as telling the analysts, "Yes, focus on the leisure travelers, but don't focus on comfort; focus on x,y,z., you assumed that leisure travelers value comfort as much as business travelers." I understand why D is correct because we assumed that 80% of tickets purchased meant leisure travelers were better for business, but I don't see why C is wrong since we only know that business travelers are better for the airline's business because of D not the stimulus

#feedback #help

Why did he not transform two most statements (LN ‑m→ comm and LN ‑m→ guarantee) into a some inference, if the sufficient condition is the same.

1. LN –m→ PriComm

LN –m→ guarantee

2. PrimComm ←s→ guarantee

Some of the plants that are sold primarily to commercial growers are also guaranteed to be disease-free. Therefore, it is possible that not all plants sold to commercial growers are guaranteed to be disease-free. This implies that even if a plant is sold primarily to commercial growers, there is no absolute guarantee that it is disease-free.

If the plants Johnson received had a virus, this suggests that either they were not guaranteed to be disease-free (possibly because Johnson is not PriComm), or they were guaranteed but did not meet that standard. Therefore, (E) is a plausible conclusion because it accounts for the fact that not all plants sold to commercial growers are guaranteed to be disease-free.

I understand that the stim did not talk about a specific society as an example but it still chose to use "political structure" and "ecological/climatic" factors as examples for a cultural phenomenon and reasons why this cultural phneomen could be different amongst societies. This is what threw me off with C and I thought this represented the example C was talking about. Can someone explain why this is not the case and it is instead E? I understand it not being a hypothesis after watching the video but am still confused on the second part of C.

I always get the high-priority ones wrong and the low-priority ones right. Does anyone know how to change the setting so I can practice only with high-priority questions?

How are we supposed to know that this is a biconditional if the biconditional indicators are if and only if, if but only if, then and only then, or...but not both, and if...then...but not otherwise?

#feedback #help

For #2 why is it not: /A → R (If he doesn't kill Arya, then he kills Robb) for step 2

Statement:

"If he doesn't kill Arya, he cannot kill Robb."

"If" is a Group 1 indicator.

"Cannot" is a Group 4 indicator.

Group Rules Recap:

Group 1: The idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the sufficient condition.

Group 4: Pick either idea, then negate that idea, and make that idea the necessary condition.

Step-by-Step Application:

"If" indicates that the phrase "he doesn't kill Arya" (/A) is the sufficient condition.

Structure with Group 1: The statement becomes: /A → [rest of the statement].

Identify the Group 4 Indicator "Cannot"

According to Group 4, negate the idea following "cannot":

"He cannot kill Robb" (/R) becomes "He kills Robb" (R).

Combine Both Steps:

From Group 1: /A is the sufficient condition.

From Group 4: R is the necessary condition.

Final Combined Statement:

/A → R (If he doesn't kill Arya, then he kills Robb).