I hesitated between A and C and ultimately chose C because I just felt like it offered stronger support for the stimulus. However, I'm struggling with JY's explanation of why A is wrong. In this instance, he says we can't assume that the researchers took the easy way out, but on other questions, he tells us that we often have to assume on RRE questions. Can anyone help clarify?

I've noticed this trend before in previous questions so I want to ask for clarification. Is it ALWAYS safe to eliminate answer choices that make a prediction about the future?

I got it write on tuition and my own understanding, but don't understand how JY mapped and eliminated A and B.

can you not take the contrapositive of the rule for either AC and argue that the condition was triggered?

For A:

/advanc -> gr is what JY has, but is /gr-> advanc not the same thing?

and if so, then the rule has been triggered and you can draw a conclusion.

The same can be said for AC B.

REALLY struggling with this one. I understood the flaw perfectly, yet when I went hunting for the AC I couldn't find it.

The argument is saying that tech. advancements are not in the best interest of society because they are done with personal interests in mind.

D is saying that an action is unlikely to be beneficial to society unless that action is motivated by the desire to be beneficial to society.

Does this not strengthen the argument if anything? I'm lost

If we can use "many" = "some" as a useful falsehood, how do we translate "many" into lawgic?

Is it by using a biconditional arrow as with "some", or a uniconditional arrow as with "most"?

Just to clarify: a prescriptive claim in the AC can never be correct for a descriptive claim in the stimulus?

I'm intuitively getting a lot of these questions right, without the logical mapping. I watch the explanation videos and end up being more confused than I was before. Is it worth it for me to

try to apply his technique anyways?