I think it plays into the sarcasm, so not a mistake lol.

I think he said "boner for the Homer"

A-train

Is this game worth it? I got it on a steam sale but haven't played it yet

Under the law, corporations are considered people, as seen in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

The second video is inspiring. I hope we all can sit in an intro law class sometime soon!

Did Kevin go to UF? Always using gator colors. Go gators!

cheeky indeed

toughie

The lesson I learned is that you cannot claim that an argument is false merely because one part of the reasoning is false. All you do is weaken the claim but it's not enough to prove that claim to be false.

I'm upset and angy

ER is wrong because it says he challenges ALL of the professors claims, when the critic doesn't challenge any of the claims. He brings up new points that the professor didn't consider.

Even if you try to link what the critic said to what the professor said, the critic never addresses how rap is not a formal learning process which the professor stated as a premise.

I realized this concept was tripping me up to

This really helped me:

https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/16343/differentiation-between-premise-and-context

Once you understand that the conclusion is usually a statement about something and the premise support the conclusion as reasons why the conclusion is true, it will help.

I needed this W

If we negate D we get that "the biological way does cost significantly more than the same amount of the conventional way." So we have the same amount of waste, despite the fact that the stim mentions that 20% less waste is produced, we can ignore this since D sets them equal. So now if we have the same amount of waste and the biological materials cost significantly more (from the negation) it shoots the conclusion down that the biological way is less costly. Therefore being a necessary assumption for the argument.

Yea what they said ^^. What's the ceiling for being to low? If we negate E, we could be raising the price but not hitting that ceiling where prospective students and parents see the value in the education from the price. The argument doesn't fall apart with this assumption.

This video helped me understand why the correct answer is correct and how to form the Lawgic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtA7nXgXuTY

For me it's hard to translate the stim into lawgic

me too, I don't know why I chose D, it makes no sense after the explanation.

What if it wasn't at night time?

Same with me I connected social inertia to the idea that they were afraid of losing their jobs. Which is exactly what A is saying and and wouldn't weaken the argument at all.

Yea it's to big of an assumption to say a spectator memorized all the lines of one performer. Compare this with C, it makes sense why a performer would have know their lines.

I also got thrown off by the fact that why wouldn't a actor have a copy of the play but I did not consider the time period and that's why I counted C out. But we can make an assumption that, maybe in the 17th century not everyone in the play had a whole copy, is reasonable to make.

There is a distinction between skeptics and the general population. It's much harder to prove something to skeptics so answer choice D raises the bar to high meaning Wallace never mentions the 2nd half of D.

Disney only has two options to support the conclusion. The tiger example gives a good reason why not all pets are good. Finally, the cat one has many possibilities to support the conclusion

John was hungry so he ate cereal. I know this because there is an empty bowl in the sink and part of the milk is gone.