Guess it's time for that next diagnostic 🙏

E says that the author of passage B is more critical of the "motives" than the author of passage A. Passage A does not mention the motives, meaning it is not critical. If B is even a little bit critical, then E is true. We haven't read passage B yet, so choice E is still consistent with the information in passage A.

This specific format wouldn't work at the beginning, since it calls back to passages that we have already read.

YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT JUST SOUND SUPER LAME AND NO ONE EVER SAYS

Not that you're wrong, but I don't think anyone here is expecting that corporations were legally defined as people. Calling corporations people always meant that corporations were extended rights that were traditionally thought to belong only to humans. Corporations are people in terms of first amendment considerations, but of course corporations are not actually human beings.

caring for the public good ---> tax funded bidets

I think maybe you got stuck in a train of thought that you couldn't break out of.

Personally this question just intuitively made more sense to represent conditionally. If a country is uneducated, that's sufficient for knowing that it will be economically weak

/educated -> weak

And if a country is well educated, that's sufficient for knowing that the country has a commitment to education

educated -> committed

Therefore, if a country is well educated, that's sufficient for knowing that the country is not economically weak

committed -> /weak

We can chain all of that up to form the chain:

/committed -> /educated -> weak

which then leads us to the flaw

/committed -> /educated -> weak

------------------------------------

committed -> /weak

I think I can clear it up a bit.

The second argument is sort of the bizarro world opposite of the first. Jamal argues that despite having the legal right to sell the business, doing so would be morally wrong (she "doesn't have the right" to do so).

Mary argues that because she has the legal right, it is morally right if she decides to sell it. She conflates the two, arguing that if she has one, she has the other. Jamal's argument recognizes and differentiates, whereas Mary's does not.

Hey there, bit late getting to you but thought maybe I could help if you're still thinking about this. In this case, that a person is "concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest" is the full conditional phrase, and exclusively is not acting as an indicator. Think of that whole phrase in quotes as "A." And now let's say that "government by consent is impossible" is "B."

"If A, then B" is the breakdown of that conditional argument.

"If a person is concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest, then government by consent is impossible."

The assumption is actually that D. is not possible! That's the flaw of the argument: it assumes that the conclusion it comes to is the only possible explanation of the given phenomenon.

I think it's to give time to do the question and blind review as well

You can kind of think about it like a correlation:

they noticed that seeing small dead fish is positively correlated (+corr) with large amounts of algae

How do we deal with +correlation? 4 options

1. A causes B

2. B causes A

3. C causes both A and B

4. C causes A and D causes B, and A and B are only coincidentally correlated.

How does this apply?

large amounts of algae cause small fish to die - this is choice 2.

The argument doesn't address choices 1,2, or 4, thus this is a flaw of the argument.

Not more reasonable at all, just what a lot of people do. Pretty sure JY consciously chooses to do the opposite because I've noticed it in a lot of videos.

I'm guessing it's a passive criticism of society's tendency to view men as "standard"

Yeah if you can't fit the answer choice to the technique, then you can't really use the technique

great explanation - just to add on, we know that the critic makes assumptions because of the word "presume"

what's the fake out? Do you mean because he started with A?

A is absolutely evidence for the conclusion as it's 1/2 of the argument by analogy in support of that conclusion

Properly inferred = argue follows logically

Basically what he's saying is that a prescriptive claim (claims that say someone should do X) doesn't belong in this argument. The argument is not weighing the reasons for why class sizes should or should not be reduced, but instead analyzing the impacts of reducing class size. It makes no recommendation, instead only saying what the outcome would be. That is, then, descriptive, and so a prescriptive assumption doesn't fit the argument.

It can be both

E is incorrect because even if she had some other purpose in poetically condensing emotional crises than the one given, the argument could still function. Her purpose being something else (like flexing her writing skills, for example) doesn't preclude her from caring about the important moral questions that those crises raise.

B is then correct because it states that her technique does not preclude her from caring about the questions it raises. Basically, B offers the possibility that she cares, which has to be the case, or else the criticisms she received would be "fair."

I don't think your reasoning works here.

The premise says that people looking on the web often can't discriminate between SV info and quackery, and then makes the argument that people who fall for quackery are likely doing more harm than good. It doesn't say that people who fall for X amount of quackery vs Y amount of SV information likely do more harm than good. The implication here is that any amount of quackery makes them likely to do more harm than good.

Think about it in terms of a real world example if that helps. Let's suppose that I'm the picture of physical health practices. I get 100% of my nutritional needs met, at the perfect times of day. I exercise regularly, for the appropriate amount of time and intensity. I sleep 8 hours, uninterrupted daily. 99.999% of the things I do health-wise are things that I read online that are scientifically supported, valid practice. But I also read online that ingesting lead leads to better heart health outcomes, so I do that too. This leads to lead poisoning and brain damage.

Do you see how that 1 tiny bit of quackery could destroy all of the other results I would gain from the scientifically backed practices?

Next one for sure, the voices told me

Strong return incoming, I'm not delusional

Don't know if you're still confused, but he also reexplains this concept in the "You Try" right before this one which is "You Try: Intentionally harming a child"