I agree the sentence in question is not a generalization, so C is incorrect, but how does the second sentence not lend support to the first? It seems to be expanding no?

"Harder, right, than the previous questions?" What. Found this by far the easiest of the section. How they determine difficulty on these baffles me.

Her conclusion is simply that the mosaics should have been left at the original site. She gives two archeological considerations to support this conclusion (already had all archeological info needed, don't want to mislead future archeologists).

All we're looking to do is justify this argument; A allows space for her reasoning to fit, and so does the best at justifying it.

B is borderline irrelevant, if anything it tries to poke a hole in her reasoning.

C is attempting to add another reason to support her conclusion--though, as jy points out, it essentially just reiterates one of her reasonings--but even if it were successful in adding something to her argument this wouldn't justify anything.

D is trying to tear down one of her premises, so this definitely doesn't justify anything.

E is completely unrelated.

Can we also take this to mean:

All large animals move as rapidly or more rapidly than small animals?

Q8: if you translate to "some" and do lawgic, how would you reverse-read that lawgic in English?

turtles -s-> swim

swim -s-> turtles

Some turtles swim across the Pacific to return to their hatching beach

Some...sea creatures (?)...that swim across the Pacific to return to their hatching beach are turtles?

Flipping "some" lawgic and translating back to English confuses me

If you have 3 total alien films and 2 of them survive, then “Few alien films have survived into the twenty-first century," seems incorrect to me.

The stimulus would have to say something like this instead to be both: "Few alien films were made in the 80's, yet most have survived to the twenty-first century."

"Entirely as they were guaranteed to be" is ridiculous

Really feels like the best strategy for these is to completely skip them outright and come back if you have any time remaining on the section...

Does anyone have tips on how they shaved off time for MBT questions besides just drilling practice problems? I can get to the right answers, but it typically takes me far too long.

At first I also thought the way it was worded did seem to suggest a definitive claim, but on a closer read it is saying there would definitively be an increase in social pressure for government control akin to the level of control the government wields with military protection ...then refers back to that level of control as extensive enough to cause economic disaster if it were ever reached.

Crucially the stimulus never explicitly states such an extensive level of control will be reached, only that demand for it will strengthen, and that if such a level of control were reached it would cause economic disaster.

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about this in this example. I think A is more likely to be merely consistent as opposed to anti-supported, but imagine this would be too ambiguous to appear as relevant to a correct answer choice on the test anyway.

As jy points out in the video, the last sentence of the stimulus positions cable's multinational expansion as an advantage over broadcast tv, suggesting broadcast tv has not expanded as such. The difference to me between "expanded" and "can be viewed" is not as wide as he makes out at the end of the video. I think it could be argued as anti-support, and so if the distinction really mattered to a question on the the test they would remove it or make it slightly more explicit.

Nevermind here. The exercise at the end of this section (44) has lots of good examples where including all conditionals and extracting the sufficient is necessary.

I don't understand why this is a particular exception to anything we have learned. Can we not just intuit things like "all residents of" as overarching conditions and go straight to what requires analysis to use group 3 rules and get

/prohibited -> purpose

/purpose -> prohibited

If you aren't a resident none of this matters, which seems clear without needing to spend time doublechecking it/applying it to the above lawgic. Are there examples of this framework of question on the test where these types of overarching conditions are less clear / will the test even ask us to focus on said overarching conditions?

I guess in other words is this just something to watch out for (overacting conditions like this) to not get tripped up on when writing out lawgic, or am completely losing the point of these last few lessons and missing a new rule I will need to apply on the test?