does any one have low resolutions for each paragraph they found helpful

Can someone explain to me why B is incorrect? Like clearly?

Isn't because a premise indicator? #help (Added by Admin)

Is B is a sufficient assumption?

#help (Added by Admin)

Why is the flaw here not part to whole? Is it because of 'some' of the CEOs went to the school? I got the right answer but reasoning was not right

Many CEO who earn 250k (group) --> went to X school (characteristic/quality)

G has characteristic

---

G must be a part of the group

I understand that the correct flaw is bad logical reasoning but I need to know why part to whole doesnt make sense here?

#help (added by Admin)

Any tips on how to skim or read this fast? Got it right in BR but I think in a timed setting I wouldn't have time to really process the lawgic/connect to ACs

#help (Added by Admin)

Any other examples of net effect questions - first I'm hearing of this. What's the diff between this and false dichotomy ?

#help (Added by Admin)

It was really hard for me to understand why B wasn't the exception, but here's how I'm reconciling that.

We know from the stimulus that tourists face X barriers to getting the better deal from the dealership (X being not knowing location and being required to pay for a taxi)

-----

for this reason, it's more advantageous/better for locals to use dealerships than for tourists to do so.

What's the assumption here? The assumption is that locals arent required to face X barriers to get the dealership deal, so they know they area and dont need to take a cab.

What if the cost to get to the rental company is much higher than the dealership? Then it would be more worthwhile for tourists to eat the costs and go to the dealership, right?

Also, we can assume the cost of getting a taxi to the dealership is likely more than whatever you will save at the dealership. What if the benefits of getting the dealership deal outweigh the price of the rental company? Then it wouldnt be true that the locals are getting a better deal bc they dont face X barriers.

Strengthening ACS need to confirm our assumption that locals dont need a taxi and dont need help finding the dealership.

Now we can look at the ACs:

A) Confirms our assumption that locals dont need to pay for a taxi

B) Tourists dont need a taxi when they use the national rental company ....this is a sneaky way of crushing the gap in the stimulus that would make us ask: what if there was a factor that would make rental company is more expensive for tourists aka more worthwhile for tourists to use dealerships ie travel costs? then, it's not true that the dealership is better for locals than for tourists.

All we know from the stimulus is that X barriers exist, but we dont know about what's required to get the dealership deal.

C) Also confirms our assumption that tourists face X barriers

D) confirms the assumption that locals indeed do not face X barriers

E) This doesnt strengthen because the same travel costs ≠ worthwhile savings for locals.

Does anyone have examples of more competing data set answers?