Hi Stiv, I'm interested in joining you guys if there's not too many people already!

This question is making me break out into hives

the biggest assumption to me is that the argument simply assumes that the people responsible for the soaring ratings are the same ones who answered the polls. also soaring ratings does not mean most people in the country watch it, it could literally mean that two years ago only five people watched the shows and now 100 do. but thousands of people in the polls said they don't watch it. there is so much assuming going on :'(

I was just wondering the same thing and when I asked chat GPT (not an amazing source of course), it said this type of skill is directed towards the Logic Games section, but practicing it can still be helpful for the Logical Reasoning section because it helps you identify assumptions, inferences, and flaws, and helps you learn how to strengthen and weaken arguments.

This seems to be a common point of discussion in the comments, but I'm struggling with the idea that we have to assume being a DVC member is a condition necessary for having access to the Genie+ pass. A common response to this concern I'm seeing is that Walt IS a DVC member, so that's irrelevant anyway. I disagree. If there is a 〰secret third option〰 for getting access to the pass for non-DVC members, who's to say DVC members cannot also use that route?

There's probably no such thing as a perfect example, but as we're learning to think critically about assumptions, etc., it becomes difficult to ignore these things. It feels like a trick question.

I think the "must have" is key. That indicates the sentence can't stand on its own and needs support, hence it is a conclusion without a premise.

edit: just had a lightbulb moment. Linguists may have conducted those analyses, but that is not the REASON why human communication is a universal phenomenon, etc.

Maybe if it said: human communication is LIKELY a universal phenomenon, etc... then we could look at the linguists analyses of traditional language from various places and eras as evidence that the conclusion is likely true.

If someone understands what I'm trying to say and thinks I'm wrong please lmk!

I agree @raginbakin ... this one is tricky for me. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that one sentence is specifically about about "human communication" and the other is specifically about "traditional languages."

Even so, in example 3.2, both sentences reference "animal communication" and that one is also not argument.