Hey! I'm not sure if this helps, but I think the speaker holds the study's author to a lower standard because that is the flaw that is being committed in the argument. The speaker is accepting that the author is professional as a high enough standard (holding them to a lower standard) to prove the experiment results. But the speaker completely disregards the critics wonderful evidence to disregard the results (holding them to a higher standard). Just my two cents:)

This was awesome! Thanks so much for the call and advice. @danielznelson160 please do more office hours.

@twssmith644 @danielznelson160 -yal rock! I expect great things:)

@publicbenjamin638 I wish I could say I did the legwork, but really, I just copied and pasted...but sometimes that's tedious too!

@rahelaalam514 thank you so much for your response! Very helpful.

No worries about the pt # @bswise2931 , I'm glad we figured it out!

So I'm still working on resolve reconcile explain questions, so take this explanation with a grain of salt. But, this definitely is a tricky question. I can see how you wanted to focus on the weight gain, but to explain a paradox in a stimulus I think we can focus on either group in the comparison to explain the paradox, whether it be the group that maintained their weight or the group that gained weight in this case, even though the support given is only for the group that gained weight.

I can also see why you aren't fond of the wording of C, but I don't think it's necessary to know how likely they are to gain or lose weight, we just need to know that they weigh less-hence, "tend to be leaner" than nonsmokers. The likelihood is irrelevant and I think if it stated "less likely to gain weight" we wouldn't be able to conclude that they actually weigh less than the nonsmokers. What do you think?

Are you sure that's the right pt, section and problem #?

Haha! I love the attitude. I think many of us have had similar experiences. I'm studying for June as well.

Glad you got it cleared up!

Congrats Mikey! When are you taking the exam?

shit, I don't either.

jk! That's exactly where they are.

Wait, where can I find them? I don't see them under the video explanations for each pt...

Thank you!

This problem is tricky because of the subtly of the conclusion and not having an immediate prephrase because of the brief argument.

E is very tricky! I think this is an example where you do POE and just trust your gut and your thorough memory method application and understanding of the passage. The first part of E is correct "while performing the functions ascribed to names by European thinkers" which is using names to distinguish between people. check. the second part about Hopi names is supported because aesthetic encompasses poetic for one. Also because the Hopi names weren't just described as poetic. In line 43 the names are described by a commentator as poetic, but they can also be described as aesthetic "concerned with beauty and the appreciation of beauty." I would argue the same for the description of the name in line 28 "little rabbit." Either way, I got this answer by POE. You are correct that it could have been written differently to include the word poetic.

@476.rizeq I try. hehe.

@7sagestudentservices L.M.A.O. I'm glad you figured it out that way instead of asking him. That's awesome.

Sure! Either way we still are looking for 3 other possibilities to explain the correlation in the stimulus.

I thought he was in a bunk bed with a fishing rod. I may be off...

I just tried to like this once, but I guess 7,348 likes is okay as well.

I think another great way to think about this problem is that the sufficient condition in the principle (if the instructions were available) is triggered in answer choice C, but the necessary condition from the stimulus (most consumers would find it much easier to put the product together) does not happen therefore answer choice C violates the principle.

Hey Yeram, do you think that because the passage states that "courts have ruled that interoffice communications may be considered private only if employees have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy that we know what the legal definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy" is as it applies to employer-employee relations?

Congrats!