Aren't we attacking the premise?

The order in which E is stated does not matter. It is simply a correlation. The more widespread the beverage, the more longer the beverage has been used in a particular place. We know is MOST widespread in Paraguay, so (compared to other countries) it is more likely the place where it has been used the longest.

Interested.

Answer choice D is very tricky, but it is a flaw after all.

JY, maybe you can correct me. But in the core lesson where you describe 19 Most Common Flaws, the last one is "Beliefs vs Facts". I think the answer choice is playing on that to some degree.

The witness is aware of a bunch of facts (like Cogleton hired the best artist etc etc). But that does not mean the witness made the connection between Cogleton's actions and the conclusion the witness draws from them.

All the logical diagramming we learnt in the preceeding lessons have gone out of the window? JY appears to be solving these just through reading the question

Struggling to fully agree with E.

Suppose we negate. Academics are EQUAL or MORE willing / able than laymen to write in a straightforward way. Doesn't change anything. Despite, their "willingness/ability," they could still be CHOOSING to write in terrible academic prose on purpose. Scholars could easily be "able" to write in simple english, but maybe they write in dense academic prose because it makes them more revered among their peers? Maybe writing in convoluted language is the secret to getting published in journals? How does their willingness/ability have any effect on what they actually do?

Can someone explain?

Note than D is not right because it may or may not be true (we cannot say). Flex schedules could give manager morales a @#$% absolute boost. But all we know from the stimulus, is about the IMPLEMENTATION of new policies.

Another assumption is that universities today are even offering history courses.

Here is one way to think about it...

The stimulus "Journalism's purpose is to blah blah"....it does not say "Journalism's only purpose is..."

So we can map it out like this:

relevant stuff -----> journalism purpose

Does that mean relevant stuff -----> journalism purpose NO!

There could still be other ways the newspaper fulfills its purpose.

I cannot understand why A is wrong. I read it differently. If in previous elections the Land Party did not use the tactic of appealing to economically distressed urban groups, it shows the party isn't just putting on a show, and adds credibility. And poor rural voters are more likely to vote for a party with a track record of such credibility.

For example:

Imagine you are a poor, rural voter. An election rolls in and this XYZ party is speaking to your needs. You learn that in previous elections, this same party has NOT tried to do the same tactic, only a different group. This should make you feel that XYZ party is not just "faking it" and pandering to your needs. Reasonable to assume you are now even more likely to vote XYZ.

I cannot understand how M has 2x as many cans as L. According to JY's example, M has 20 cans and L (after giving) has 0. So M should be 20x more cans than L!

There needs to be an apples to apples comparison! How can you compare a post-transfer version of M (when it has 20 cans) with pre-transfer version of L (when it has 10 cans). In other words, there is never a moment when M is twice as many cans as L.

When M has 20 can, L technically has 0 cans (cos it gave it all way).

Likewise, when M has 10 cans, L had 10 cans too!

Playing devil advocate here. Correct me if I am wrong. In the real world, don't insurance companies rely on such thinking. If you get a sports car, you are paying a higher insurance because statistically, there is evidence to show sports cars have higher accident rates than mini vans. If you drive a van instead, the insurance company is not assuming you will not have an accident , but it does assume that you would have a lower risk of an accident.

I don't understand. I thought I heard JY mention before that we do not question the premise or the conclusion of the argument, but question the support / relationship between a premise and conclusion. But in this case,are we not directly questioning the conclusion which says "what destroys the enzyme is not heat."

I cannot understand how we can accept that the "complaint that oral skills were being destroyed" is an example of a cultural change. And even if we do accept, how does it being a "cultural change" help the author? The author is to trying to point to examples of the human mind altering

Thanks JY, but there is one issue I spotted with the explanation. At 4:34, you note that the "proponents think the pollution will go from 100 to 0." But this is not exactly correct. The proponents only think there will be an "abatement" of environmental degradation. While the word abatement can mean "to end," it can also mean to "reduce or to lessen"

Consider example below

Proponents may be thinking pollution will go from 100 (before electric cars) to 50 (after electric cars). But the proponents have assumed this reduction figure, without considering that all 3 power sources actually suck. If they factor in the 3 power sources, pollution may only drop from 100 (before electric cars) to 70 (after electric cars). And that is why A is correct - because the electric cars will have worse pollution than what the proponents think.

70 (actual) > 50 (proponents think)

E is wrong because there can still be a net reduction, though it is very tricky to understand how. Technically, there CANNOT be a net reduction. For example, imagine before the electric cars there are 100 units of pollution. Each power source, dams (20), coal (30), and nuclear (40) also produces pollution units. No matter what source is used for the electrical cars, there will always be an overall increase to either 120, 130 or 140. There can only be a net reduction, if the author assumes, that the electric cars will REPLACE gas cars.