yup i just got it too even though i watched an explanation video less than 10 minutes ago. why hasn't this been fixed yet

i crossed them all out and im still convinced this isnt right because there isnt any evidence that the "events" are correlated at all. I was thinking the obvious answer is that the argument fails to acknowledge that people who work on a portable computer might just work more often because they have the means to bring their computer home with them. I don't understand how we can infer that earning more caused someone to have a laptop at their place of work? The only way I can see it working is if they bought PERSONAL laptops with their extra job money, but the stim doesn't say that.

this was tricky I had B and switched to A

i don't understand how we're supposed to know what overproduction of insulin does? Does it speed up the process or make it more efficienct or slow it down? I would think if it incessantly creates energy then it would use up energy more quickly so I chose A. is it saying body fat will build up more quickly? if they exercise at the same rate as people not on the diet aren't they using the energy that an overproduction of insulin would turn to fat?

how are non native english speakers supposed to do this if most of us don't even know what they mean by dissolve

so B is wrong because if you negate it it doesn't destroy the argument since the argument is a hypothetical? it doesn't matter if we can ACTUALLY convert heat into energy, because the conclusion is a conditional?? it seems like if we negate B it would render the argument invalid, but not if the argument is only a hypothetical?

this one was easy because none of the other answers were even relevant

is E sufficient but not necessary? I had C and changed to E in BR because i thought negating it would show that if the DNA are similar they would have had to interbreed and if they're different they wouldn't have?

i noticed the gap but i didnt read the full question stem and chose D for some reason

oops i read this so fast and chose B within seconds. BR I realized I misinterpreted the argument

so multiple awards can be given out? I assumed that the recommendation was for Franklin to win OVER Penn so it didn't matter what Penn's qualifications are, but the correct answer seems to assume that multiple officers can receive it if we have to affirm that Penn CANNOT. does that make sense can someone clear that up?

ugh I had E but thought C made more sense in BR

will answer choices always match the positive or negative language in the stimulus? or will it ever be the contrapositive? (C), (B), and (E). Can we always cross these out immediately?

i didn't choose D because I thought we couldn't assume which way the temperature goes? It just says it differs by at least 2 degrees, so are we supposed to assume that it's 2 degrees warmer??

I still don't understand why C is wrong. If the parasites latch on to get nourishment, then if the stingrays aren't nourished enough because of pollution, then that would explain why they don't have parasites? I still see this as explaining the discrepancy. Can someone help? None of the answers online explain this.

i counted out A because I took all harm to be equal :( the fact that the stim says minor interactions can be harmful messed me up

on the test should we try to find the main point/purpose questions first? or does it not really matter as long as we're strategic about skipping ones we don't know?

anyone else trying to cram all of these new lessons before next week lol

HI!

this is great I hope I have time to go through these resources before aug 8th