This explanation video doesn't match the question from the PT, is there another explanation video for this question in the works?

Answer D is tricky because it is actually a must be false answer.

We know that any industrial country that starts the Industrial Process will inevitably have a larger output of pollution problems (second sentence).

So, if D. happens then these pollution problems will increase in the next few years not decrease. Which directly contradicts the conclusion. That's why C is right and D is not!

I don't think they state intelligible but they use "coherent" as a stand in.

So when they say "unintelligible when it is presented independently of its original function" it corresponds with "incoherent when independent of original function" (which is the opposite of what the stimulus is saying)

I think this is a great Process of Elimination question. But first the reason why C is right.

We know that the ship did not implode, so we know that it was fully flooded when it reached the bottom of the ocean. That could only happen by either sabotage or by the hull being fully flooded.

We know that normally Rienzi's descent was too quick for the Rienzi to have fully flooded, so either it was sabotage, it wasn't normal, or it wasn't fully flooded (and therefore imploded.) It wasn't the last option so that leaves the other two - which is what C says.

C. The flooding wasn't normal or was by sabotage.

Process of Elimination

A.. Out of Scope, the information provided does not tell us this

B. It would've imploded if this was true - goes against the premise

C. Doesn't immediately look wrong. It's just saying it wasn't sabotage, the water must have filled the hull so it didn't explode

D. This is the opposite of what would have happened. If this happened the Rienzi would have not imploded.

E. Similar to question A , the information provided dose not tell us this. This doesn't HAVE to be true. We are looking for a MUST

I was stuck on (B) for a long time, and I realized for B to be correct I STILL had to assume (A).

My thought process: Well if the bridge disappeared then the spear points would have been made in Siberia (important assumption:) making them older than the ones in NA.

I want to shake something. (B) does not work WITHOUT the assumption of A

I also was stuck between C and E but solved it in a different way. I thought the defining feature of C was the use of CONTEXT and of E the use of MANNER.

I said to myself - what if there was a tv show/podcast/radio show not intended to entertain a broad audience but to educate. (the stimulus states "they are expected to" not that they always need to entertain a broad audience).

I thought that C closed too many of those gaps by saying it doesn't matter of the content or the intent it just matters it is a tv/radio show. While E implies that it is fine to do it on those shows as long as the manner doesn't lead to a lower standard of psychological help!

NA don't support as much because they plug up "what if" statements. They are proven by the conclusion instead of the other way around.

NA must be true if the conclusion is true. They aren't really in the argument as much as they live outside of the argument.

Premise --> Conclusion --> NA

I think this is an argument that leads to a contradiction. Mapped out it looks like this:

Role: Protect HR

~Constitution Explicit --> SC Outside Constitution

~ HR Subject --> SC Inside Constitution

Must use Constitution

False(Role: Protect HR)

In letter terms:

A

A-->B

C-->~B

C

A is false

E) basically states we could as easily conclude C is false instead of A which is easy to see when you substitute in the letters.

Hope this helps!

Hi!

Why C is right

C. This has nothing wrong with it, so keep.

Moral Ideals - mentions that it is a "human right"

Self Interest - The idea of self interest is murky but not outright wrong. They mention "nothing is gained by forcing citizens to disseminate...". It's arguing that when you adopt these principles there are advantages. When you don't adopt the principles you don't get these wonderful advantages ("nothing is ever gained by...")

Wrong Answers

A. Free speech doesn't flourish - good ideas flourish because of free speech. Wrong.

B. There are two reasons why this is wrong. They aren't arguing for basic rights of citizens rather they are arguing Freedom of speech is A basic right and should be adopted. Also this is the opposite of what they are arguing. Freedom of speech is a basic right (and should be adopted) AND it is the only "rational policy" (and should be adopted)... so its not for it's own sake

D. This is out of score there is no discussion about the "difficulty of suppressing the truth" and there is no warning. They argue that there is nothing to lose but everything to gain.

E. This is a reversal answer - they are describing an ideal answer that CAN be achieved and should be achieved.

I didn't see anything immediately wrong with C. But there were glaring problems with the other four answers. So I went with C.

I hope this helps!

I'm interested as well! EST and free nights and weekends

I'm interested!! I'm in NYC area :)

I'm interested!

If there's still room I'd love to join!