@rydlerjune i guess the "implausible" wording changes the game. Just by using that word, the stimulus is eliminating a possibility purely on the grounds that the author thinks something is not reasonable (implausible). So C is offering evidence for an alternative explanation that hunting happened, thereby weakening the argument.

Those who think that C is attacking the premise directly either fails to understand the meaning implausible or commits the belief vs truth flaw.

@CheyenneChang the question is not asking why people failed in using the method, but why the method had not been used. It is stated in the passage that one of the great difficulties of implementing the method is the interference issues (which is safe to interpret that as one of the reasons that the method is not used), while we have to make a logical jump to conclude from the Emeagwali is the first who have ever used such method (orignal text "Emeagwali pioneered the use of massively parallel computers") to that E is also the first to ever think of using this method.

So, this question turned into an assessment of what is an unfounded logical jump that we can not make vs what is inferable based on the stated text.

I think from the stimulus, it is not enough to say that the dietitian recommends a certain eating habit to start with. When reading with assumptions (that whatever why of eating that is effective in providing nutrients and is not unhealthy is recommended by the dietitian), one can say that the stimulus is recommending the eating habit of eating raw carrots with at least some fat.

Even semantically, the statement bear on the inventor/engineer distinction, the purpose of the statement in issue is not aiming to clarify the distinction, but scope-management

B is a magical reversal!

• if they recevie more than twice average rainfall ---> lonnger than average taproot (lowkey E); not the other way around.

@amytorres To add on, D would be right when rephrased: if something disappears when there is a loss of belief in it, then that thing does not exist. we dont know what is sufficient for a thing to exist.

@LowriThomas I wonder if E is correct if the question stem is asking for most strongly supported

@angienelms2001788 The flaw in the stimulus is that just because a set of A has more trait X compared to set B, one particular instance of A must have trait X. E is saying that just because a set of A has more trait X compared to set B, a particular instance of A would have more trait X compared to a particular instance of B.

E would be right if the last sentence of the stimulus is "therefore the question must be more difficult than the dinosaur question on Prof Curtis's exam.

@corean7polar724 hard most strongly supported questions always feel like a stretch...

@SMRegalado Most NEW zoo animals does not equal to nearly all animals in the zoo (old AND new).

And most sometimes can be nearly all but does not equate to nearly all, given that most means equal to or more than 50%

@LeonardoMartinez The circumstances are not given, it is really happening (inferred from "there would not be..." ). So yes, the implied conclusion is that the critics were wrong.

GOT super confused becuase i though the question stem is asking if the critics' claims are true :(

magic eye illusion really fucked me up for this one

I forgot about the first premise (the first sentence) because I expected the argument to have all the premises right next to one another. So I thought that the argument is missing a very important premise that relates the rate of losing business to the size of the companies. That is why, despite the misaligned feeling that I have for B, I chose B.

B would have been right if the stimulus had gone like:

1. The number of companies has been the same.

Conclusion: the planning board is guilty because the companies are not leaving at this rate.

For those who don't understand how the consensus is related to the interpretation of law, the disagreements among the jurists are disagreements on how to interpret the meaning of that law / word.

"... not by deciding what is morally right." does not mean that the jurists should not try to interpret the law. What is morally right is a normative opinion, whereas the interpretation of a word / legal code is a neutral, factual opinion. (but im also abit confused by this because i think advocating for a certain interpretation is a normative statement by nature)

Besides, the article stated that "the judge's interpretive role is limited to discerning this consensus," meaning that jurists (def: judges and those who study law) reaching a consensus is viewed by the positivist as a means to interpret the law.

fun? thought that i kept having when doing this question is how Q could counter C by saying that the ability to interact with computer technology would be an obsolete skill eventually as well because of AI

*sigh*

@SydneyGriffith Valid explaination, but I think the original question writer is having difficulties trying to understand why it is ok to assume intentionality is a necessary condition for fraud since it is not mentioned in the stimulus. I had the same hesitation when doing this question. I don't know what constitues as a scientific fraud and didn't want to assume that not inetnionally violating the guidelines would not be a fraud.

Regarding the assumption in E that is needed for it to work<, I have a few things to say: there's a difference between an assumption that's needed and unstated-but-natural versus one that requires you to import new facts against the grain of the passage. Nothing in the stimulus or in E itself suggests the surrounding region changed anything: the stimulus frames the schedule change as a distinctly Granville event. Absent any signal that the region did the same thing, the default reading of "if true" in the qeustion stem is that the region represents the status quo Granville also used to have. That's not an invented fact so much as declining to invent one (the assumption that they did copy Granville is the one requiring extra information you don't have, like a 0->1 assumption).

@ScottW just because something is created after another does not mean that it did not derive from the latter.

@calliekoskovich but one can't infer from the stimulus that evidence of SB present is needed for one to conclude that they are infected. The necessary condition is the evidence other than the fact that SB is present.

I didn't choose B because I am the stimulus is saying that

premise 1: A ---> B;

Conclusion: A ---> C.

But then the correct answer choice is saying that

Premise: A--->B

Conclusion: A---> B and C

How is that parallel?

Isn't also possible to see the reasoning like this: evidence of streptococcus is not enough to conclude that a person is infected. because infection ---> physically run down.

E is saying that occasional high reading for blood pressure is not enough to conclude that a person is hypertensive. because hypertensive ---> chronical high blood pressure

@ErinSiodmak First, D is not inferable because the author never compares autobiographies with novels. Even if we admit that the story is resulting in a powerful outcome (which is already an assumption with personal judgments), we don't know the extent of its power compared to domestic novels.

For B, I had to deduct one step further from what's being stated in the article that by saying "two genres," the author is implicitly agreeing that the slave narrative is a genre. But if it is super obvious for you that is even better! If the question stem is asking what the author would most likely to agree, then isn't it better that the AC is exactly stated by the author compared to an implied AC?

I thought that by having patient satisfaction as a consideration in administering medical treatment, the administering of placebos would not be ethically questionable, since they accounted for how the placebo could be useful during the administration of medical treatment.

But, I assume that any fact that is a consideration in administering medical treatment would be useful, and that if it is useful, it is ethically unobjectionable to administer it.

However, what is missing (or honestly what I was trying to build with the assumption above) is a bridge that links ethical questionability with patient satisfaction / prescribing medicine just for satisfaction. B is completing that missing piece. I didn't spot it because I was looking for satisfaction, but actually the gap focuses not on the patient but the doctors giving the patient medicine JUST FOR sth (which is the motivation).

@owenshi2012 Well, even if the stimulus is right in the grammar that it intends to establish the equal to relatinoship, E would still be correct

@treigysmartynas592 but resolving apparent discrepancies questions need some assumptions for the answer choices. You can say the same for other ACs as well ( for example in A, population increase does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in demand for carrots or vitamin deficiencies). If we are so cautious with assumptions in resolving discrepancies, then there would be no correct answer choices. This skepticism with assumptions is necessary for other uestions types like must be true, but definitely not resolving discrepancy.