Hi I can try! For me, I was between A and B. I chose A because it mentioned Mondays and seemed more specific. For C, the paradox is how come these people (unemployed and retired) still have heart attacks on Mondays even though they don't work. Yes C can resolve a paradox in general that yes people who don't change their diets may be a cause of a heart attack. But 1, it doesn't specify whether these diets were good or bad which would make a difference. And 2, it still doesn't explain the exact point of how they are also susceptible to heart attacks on Mondays even though they don't work. Does that make sense

I was between D and E, I ultimately eliminated D because it said a "smaller amount" but then I looked at the conclusions and it didn't specify any amount of visitors. So think about it like this, if you were trying to weaken this argument as we are, and someone said this stimulus to you and you responded to them with answer choice D, would that make them stop and realize the argument wouldn't work? No, they would probably say something like "Well I didn't specify how many it would benefit, and at least it's benefitting some". I ended up choosing E because of the process of elimination but I can also see how it would work. The argument is that the benefits of the telephone industry benefited consumers because of the competition. And If you say there will be "much less competition", then the benefit would be less or not at all.

Help. I chose B but that's because the conclusion said "The benefits to the HOMEOWNERS are enormous." So I read B and thought well it doesn't matter how much money the lighting industry makes because we're talking about the homeowners. Would that be a good thought process? I didn't think of it how JY did

I believe he means that if the conclusion is concluded based on the sample size, and NOT making an assumption based on EVERYONE BECAUSE of the sample size, bringing in an answer choice about a sampling error is not going to strengthen or weaken the argument. This is because the argument is making an assumption based on the findings of the students in that experiment alone. Does that make more sense? If the conclusion said something like "Thus, every first grader....." but it's not. I also am a little confused too because the conclusion doesn't explicitly state "in the participants", it kind of sounds general. But I think we just have to be careful. But maybe it's because this is a strengthening question and I think D is weakening it

Yes if it's trying to describe the reasoning for why something had the outcome it did in the question stim. If you can ask yourself "why did this happen" and you can't answer based on what you read in the stim, then yeah MOST of the time they're probably wrong because those questions are trying to trick you into turning off the topic. Always remember to stay focused on what the question stim is saying and use no outside interpretation or knowledge, especially for these types of questions.

A stimulus is the question stem, as well as the question and answers so like its basically stimulus = the question. for example:

“Marine biologist: Scientists have long wondered why the fish that live around coral reefs exhibit such brilliant colors. One suggestion is that coral reefs are colorful and, therefore, that colorful fish are camouflaged by them. Many animal species, after all, use camouflage to avoid predators. However, as regards to the populations around the reefs, this suggestion is mistaken. A reef stripped of its fish is quite monochromatic. Most corals, it turns out, are relatively dull browns and greens."

the entire thing is the stimulus, hope this helps

Ok so if I don't know how to do this which lesson should I go back to and review? I've taken notes on every single lesson but for some reason it's still not clicking

guyssss what did he say i didn't get any of thatttt

does the sufficient condition or necessary condition have a designated spot that goes first when we are doing x--> y or not?

#HELP Ok im so confused and I keep going back to lessons trying to figure this out. I know the subject goes before the predicate when ur translating into lawgic, but like i don't understand how translating to lawgic helps us understand the sufficient or necessary condition. like what does translating this stuff do besides help us understand the sentence? it says "You pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition." but in the examples we do that with both ideas to show the contrapositve so which one is actual;y showing us the real relationships?? this probably makes no sense but I am confused on i guess the labels. translating it is easy for me but what spot is the necessary or sufficient conditiion in. like for example group 3 is the same as this except we are making it the sufficient condition, not necessary. but were doing the exact same process, so i dont get how this helps us determine which condition is which u know?

from my understanding, a relative claim does not imply any absolute quality (such as a right or wrong assumption, meaning at least 2 assumptions from reading a relative claim could be true). Vs, the absolute claim would mean that after reading the sentence, there is only one outcome/inference possible to be made that is correct but only reading that sentence (an absolute claim). Does this make sense

from my understanding, a relative claim does not imply any absolute quality (such as a right or wrong assumption, meaning at least 2 assumptions from reading a relative claim could be true). Vs, the absolute claim would mean that after reading the sentence, there is only one outcome/inference possible to be made that is correct but only reading that sentence (an absolute claim). Does this make sense