Interested!

My thoughts exactly. I did not choose A/C C because I thought there is a possible world in which all cats have all IDENTICAL proteins in their skin secretions (i.e. Protein X, Y, Z), but the differences in allergy sufferers' reactions are caused by which protein the sufferer is specifically allergic to (Person A gets a reaction from Protein X and Z, while Person B gets a reaction from Protein Y, while Person C only gets a reaction from Protein X).

But I guess it's just because this question is a MSS, not a MBT.

#feedback

Honestly I think it is (because circular reasoning is "If A-->B, then B-->A," which this kinda follows) but what's wrong with answer choice E is that it says it presupposes the conclusion specifically in the DEFINITION of moral order, which doesn't talk about immortality. Moral order requires human immortality but its definition does not mention anything about immortality.

Anyone agree that my assessment is right?

#feedback

This is kind of how I see it:

CONTRAPOSITIVE: should play joke --> /contempt + /bring harm

(which I believe aligns with your understanding of the stimulus as well).

However, there is NO instance when "should play joke" ends up in a necessary condition. "Should play joke" only appears in the sufficient condition, when contraposed. And as emphasized in your question above: "so wouldn’t B be a logical conclusion?," if you look at B, the conclusion/necessary condition is quote: "it would not be wrong for me to play it." Hence, it is at this point, you confused sufficient for necessary.

There is a "Quick View" button above the video that shows the entire question & answers.

How do you navigate the tension between representative sample vs controlling for all else? I know in the Ideal Experiment session (https://7sage.com/lesson/the-ideal-experiment/) it is mentioned that by controlling for everything else, an experiment can best isolate a single difference. Why does C not fall into this category?

#feedback

Seems like the "shopping list" factor was a red herring that tries to trick you into selecting B? Ultimately it seems like it has no impact in this stimulus

If you're accounting for the comparable-ness between the two groups, answer choice B also seems to require you to make the assumption that the unnecessary items (resulting from the shopper having no list) are more expensive than "necessary" items (purchased by the shoppers having lists).

Can you really say for Answer Choice A that Kim agrees with that statement? I would think it is ambiguous. Also, how are you justified in making an inference for Laird about pure research and medical applications? It seems to me like its an assumption made out of nowhere.. How are we able to conflate medical applications = saving lives?

#feedback

Shouldn't answer choice C receive 2 Xs (anti-supported) instead of checks (and that's why it fails the MSS test)?

#feedback

same!