I convinced myself A was the right answer by completely ignoring the only and treating it as "IF". Gotta pay attention!

So I drew this up to help me out. Think about this: there's three co-defendants. Let's name them A, B, and C. The plantiff wants to question each one of them individually without their co-defendants present. So for example: if she wants to question A, then B and C and their counsels cannot be present for that questioning. The problem is, is that two of these co-defendants share the same lawyer. So she may want to question B, but then B has the same lawyer as A... So, the rule can't work because the only way for it to work is if A got a different lawyer. The stimulus shows that the judge is not making the defendant get a different lawyer and he has a right to pick his own counsel. So, the rule literally cannot work because no matter how much she wants to question B and not have A present, they have the same lawyer: its impossible.

What is the implicit (subtle) assumption here? That the defendants have a right to their counsels being present for questioning. Otherwise, then the rule wouldn't be an issue if they didn't need their lawyers present.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Grateful that I went hunting on this question because I saw the assumption on the conclusion that was the answer choice!

So a way that I approached this question that may help other people from getting baited by B is this: the stimulus tells us that the SOLE purpose of copyright is to only encourage authors from getting money right and we are in charge of showing something that goes beyond the scope, beyond the intention of what it was originally supposed to be. For example (and please spare biases and give some grace): Cars were originally intended to go from point A to point B faster. Some people use cars for different reasons now: to run people over, to use it as an income source, go from point A to point B or to simply collect as an enthusiast. So if we were charged showing how the car has gone farther than the original purpose it was created for, then the reasons I listed would be examples. Same way here on the question, what are ways that copyright has gone beyond its original purpose. The fact that they last after someone's death has little bearing on financial gain for the individual because well they're dead who cares about money when you're dead and it was not in the original purpose listed in the stimulus.

I would disagree. The stimulus already told you that Azedcorp does not want to sell. If she offered them more money than before, what assumption is required for that answer choice to even be close to strengthening the analysis that the industry experts made? That they will change their minds about not selling. If you take Azedcorp out like E does, then guess what the only obstacle is gone and she's able to take the majority of the shares.

Proud of myself. Anytime I see science I go into a panic mode because I hate it, but instead focused on the structure and framework of the theory and the answer choices that were in the form of experiments/phenomenon and was able to get B immediately.

Wow. I was so attracted to E but I made the same subconscious assumption that their preferences cannot change... and I literally picked C knowing that assumption too, but removing E left me with C.

Sheesh these weakening questions are kicking my butt comparable to MBT, MSS, and RRE.

Okay... so I LITERALLY made the assumption that if you are an actor, you MUST have a copy of the play because well.. maybe you needed to learn your part?!?!? I guess that must've not been reasonable given the 17th century. Otherwise, that assumption is what immediately tipped me over to E rather than C.

C could've been explained with another one which its answer choice provides a great segway: CNN.

It's saying that for almost all of the people that believed Walker was guilty. The stimulus says that that's almost HALF of the city's residents. So almost all (80-90%) of the almost half (40-49%) of the city's residents had thought that even before he was accused, he did a sucky job. Let me put it into a perspective that could be helpful. Almost half of America viewed Donald Trump as a sucky president before his first impeachment trial. Then came out the news of the impeachment trial. Do you think that their answers changed of him being a sucky president? Probably not. So then that explains why Donald Trumps approval rating never changed: he's got the people he likes and he's got the people he hates. He has loyalty to his hatred and to his likeness on both sides, much like Walker (in this scenario).

Good news: getting these questions right... but I'm doing it with 3 or 4 mins each time. I know I shouldn't worry about time right now but I can't help but think at some point hopefully it goes down.

I got 4/5 but the one I missed was the last one.. I read it as if the stimulus said "The facts described above provide the strongest evidence FOR which of the following" rather than against... Had that I read it, I ruled out B for being contradicting to the passage's facts...

What one word can change...

So I wrote out the logic for the question, but I guess in my logic I assumed already that the proposal would be met so I never added the third conjunction of the proposal. Would that be logically incorrect to assume that in general because of course here that assumption proved harmless.

I am so proud of myself... I always had a hard time diagraming unless statements, but for me the rule/exception framework always worked out so well for me to understand. I used it in this case and immediately inferred the restatement that was B.

Not me getting all of them right and convincing myself out of the right answers on blind review..... Sheesh.

I had circled D first and talked my way out of it because it didn't match in my mind the "ideal" answer choice since it needed an assumption on Talbert's part despite the contradiction for Sklar.

Bias!

Maybe I overthought this one, maybe it's me applying my common sense to something that is designed for me to check that out the door... but E for me required an assumption that I wasn't willing to make. I can see that it talks about how financial problems creates a different set of problems, but like below I haven't been shown yet that not having a short life or having a life that is not pain-free is solving a problem. Maybe it is, it sounds like it. I also have my own argument for C how you could of potentially avoided the issue of social welfare programs if you simply gave them more funding or maybe someone had the foresight to give them progressive amounts of funding as you age.

These are all thoughts that were swirling through on blind review that led me to pick the same answer.

You know, I picked B because as much as I wanted C, I was turned off by how strong its claim was. Looking back, B was egregiously bad as an answer choice. I can't assume that they have long understood something to be important when theres some wording to suggest that this was figured out just now in the present day with "appears" and "study". But that suggestion even enshrined in assumptions too. Needless to say, the writers got me.

I was between B and C and was very reluctant to pick C because of the strength of such conclusion comparable to B. However, I came to the same realization that JY did: if they don't behave differently, then they wouldn't be more or less likely to communicate. Made C the only answer choice that flowed from the passage.

Eventually we'll learn to work through it man

Causal Arguments have nothing to do with valid or invalid: they're informal so naturally they are going to be invalid logically.

I am not gonna lie to you: this lesson confused me because I had to be honest with myself. Subconsciously, we know that these things are not causes but correlations: there needs to be an explanation. For example, the concept of correlation does not equal causation was taught to me like this in middle school: There is a correlation between the increase in the crime rate and the increase in temperature. The inference here would then be, so summer is when the crime rate is the highest, and winter is when its at its lowest. There's a bunch of ways we can poke holes in this but this is how I tend to remember this concept with a silly example like this.

The way I like to see this to help me understand is reflecting it off of criminal law burdens to meet.

Beyond every reasonable doubt is ALL. Preponderance of Evidence is Most Probable Cause is Some.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden a jury can find. So, if the jury has believed a defendant is beyond a reasonable doubt of lets say Grand Theft, then we can also infer that they have met preponderance of evidence, and probable cause because they are lower burdens to meet and those have to be met already to get to the highest burden.

This may help some, for me in my criminal brain, it helps to visualize it like this.

From what I understand, the word ANY is a Group 1 indicator, which introduces the sufficient condition. Journalism is what would be brought up in the domain, and so that would mean that any journalism that provides..... is the sufficient condition. What follows is, the necessary condition which is "good journalism".

Because the indicator isn't just if, it's only if. Only if indicates Group 2, meaning what comes after it is the necessary condition. So if you have streamed Game of Thrones, you've done it only because you have maintained the active subscription for more than a year. Contrapositive: if you have not maintained the active subscription for more than a year, then you cannot stream Game of Thrones Seasons 5-8.