@Oasis323 it's important to realize that we cannot infer from the stimulus that any small zoos have valuable contributions. What if all the small zoos that are well run don't make valuable contributions and only those have part time veterianians. In short, we don't know if the zoos that make valuable contributions in AC C are the exact same well-run ones that P3 is talking about.

challenge, not likely to support/agree

D would be correct if it says "degree of genetic difference is not a complete determinant when it comes to decisions about whether to classify them as belonging to the same species."

@RebeccaRawson Similarly, I found C convincing because I thought the argument was attempting to conclude something that is true for all test subjects based on information of a specific type of test subjects (the ones who participate in tests with medicine that treats their suffering diseases), and I still don't see people responding to how this is not right...

After a bit thought, i think it is easier to see how the two groups are the same group of people, but the grammar of the argument perplexed the whole situation:

• Evidence population: subjects who signed consent forms for trials of experimental medicines treating their own diseases.

• Conclusion population: the ethicists' claim about subjects who "resent being given placebos" or resent ineffective medicines"in the same trials.

I thought avert means cause...

JY's written explanation on how to weight between A and D triggered true relevations at this point:

"Because of this change in sets, it's not even clear that the causal forces at play for the industries (whatever they may be) are even relevant for the particular businesses the conclusion is talking about. "

How to weigh between flaws A and B:

When flaw A is in place, is it still clear that flaw B is relevant for the conclusion?

@EthanLucas "Ultimately, lying is all but inescapable for a writer attempting to create an artistically coherent autobiography." -----B. I crossed AC B out because I dont think its infereable based on the passage that the author talks about anything related to the creatino of good narrative, but if anything, B author agrees with AcB

OK, so i understood the grammar and the word's meaning correctly.

B preceded by A means A happens before B. both the stimulus and AC B are concluding that B will happen since B happened and that A used to always happen before B.

However the stimulus has an extra layer of complexity: the CR.

EACH is the indicator of the CR

major earthquake --> preceded by a series of minor tremors.

where as the timeline is MT takes place before ME.

B, every as the indicaotr is saying that

every spring is preceded by high snow ---> overflow

high snow ---> overflow

where as the timlien is that high snow takes place before the overflow.

Honestly disgusting question

I think E is basically justifying / generalizing the premise that there is no relationship between quality and popularity, but it is not doing anything to explain why knowing that A's reason of popularity is location has to do with not being surprised that the food is not good.

improve product ---> it is necessary to do so for popularity

(when it is not necessary to do so for popularity ---> no improve product)

T location ----> T popularity

------

(T no improve product)

Not surprising to see that there is mediocre quality food at T.

@samiam101723646 the premise is a general principle and the conclusion is a specific case

@mikeross-jr what helped me to chose C over B is, after I lay out all the needed assumptions for both ACs, I go revisit the stimulus to see what the reasoning of the argument is (two premises on the abundance of evidence). Because C directly addresses the premise of how the abundance of the enemies' accounts and ruled out the possibility that such abundance, despite the authorship, is still very reliable, while B is not directly mentiong the other premise of documentation (though it wants you to make an assumption so that it does relate to the premise), so C is just a better support cause it builds on the premise, hence the reasoning with less important assupmtions that is needed to connect the support with the premise.

I didn't want to choose B because I didn't realize that the consequence of the scientific theory could be its application to society, sigh.

@TheBigFatPanda

absent formal legal protection, there would be scant production of creative works, as potential creators would be deterred by the unlikelihood of recouping the cost of their creations.

And then we get to know that well, in real world, the production of creative works is not scant, comedians are still cranking out new materials night after night, suggesting that it is at least possible for the comedians to recoup the cost of their creations, but how? The next paragraph says that it's through social norms.

@Ssss same

I was hunting for an AC tha "It could be possible that deep carbon deposits have lliving organisms" A few assumptions that I didn't want to make that made me not choose D:

1. In the scientists' theory, the deep carbon deposits are located somewhere deep inside the Earth's crust.

2. that bacteria are living organisms.

I guess now looking back, i can infer 1 from "deep" carbon deposits and 2 from "thrive"

@tinamarie2003 Since plausible means likely to be true while possible means something is able to occur, the author can be acknoweldge the possibility of something while doubt its plasuibility. But even if you don't know the nuance, I think we can infer from "even if the process is possible, does it even occur" that the author is unconvinced by Steele of the practical possibility of the process. Besides, the author described their theory as "speculative", which further doubts its possibility as well.

ya i didn't know hat analog means and thought its some newly unmentioned science term so i eliminated C

@cpdevill307 But A still is a bad answer because neither Nick's nor Pedro's opinion is about making business decisions! I don't know if donations count as business decisions...

man i assumed the conclusion is "would be difficult "for the people in the past" to demosticate...."

I think the reason why C is wrong is not the irony part, but that the sentence is not meant to be ironic on how Tollefson is concluding on with the suggestions to change. The author obviously has positive feelings about the changes, but the author thinks that Tollefson should be more detailed about the changes. I think I would choose C if it's "point out the irony of Tollefson not being able to offer detailed suggestions when knowing the complexity of the programs."

@beetbeet the NC of what you quoted is to be preserved. D's NC is on modernization. two different CR statements

tldr

if (A--> B) is true,

then (A and C --> B) must also be true.

(tricky becuase it doesn't work the other way around)

The explanation is not that accurate for E. Very likely do indicate most, however, the subject that "very likely" was predicated to is beginners who try to match the high kicks, not all beginners, so we can't infer that most beginners experience injuries. If the stimlus is phrased that it is very likely for beginners to injure from matching the high kicks of more skilled prcatitioners, E would be correct.

@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.