Me too, not in the area but id like to join virtually

Would we be expected to infer the comparison of interglacial periods to glacial periods? I compared interglacial periods to "non interglacial periods". my way is less efficient but does it miss any information?

Is an object a special type of modifier of the predicate?

Is there anything wrong with thinking about the two subjects as one? "Harry or Ron" as a unit "will take Prof Flitwicks class" (predicate)? Im trying to think of an an example where this type of metal condensing would lead to trouble. Does anybody have any ideas?

For 4. Couldn't 'Durning his presidency' be considering a modifier of the subject? we aren't talking about Thomas Jefferson at all times, but the subset of Thomas Jefferson while he was president. Why is this not also correct? and does it matter?

(Intelligent [subject modifier] beings)[subject] (often mercilessly [predicate modifiers] destroy [verb] civilizations [object] that they deem to be a threat [object modifier])predicate

#feedback I don't understand how to blind review, is there a section that explains this? I would like to get the most out of these first questions.

What is the difference between a bad argument (with very little support and many assumptions) and a series of facts that is not considered an argument? is a spectrum or is there a district way to tell?

Here's an example

SP: art material is a substance or tool that is used to make expressions of the artist. it must transform or add to the medium.

SP2: Crayons draw on paper (a medium)

SP3: making marks on paper is considered transformative of the medium

SC/MP: Crayon's are art materials.

P4: One should not eat any art materials

MC: One should not eat crayons

For #3 I could see either the first [Train service suffers when a railroad combines.] or last [f railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.] statement being the conclusion. The right answer was the last statement but why is that. I think the the argument could run both way, besides the indicator word is there are way to tell which way the argument runs in a case like this? I could see this being a problem in a question without indicator words.

To explain further: Here is the question:

Train service suffers when a railroad combines. By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well. Therefore, if railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.

Argument 1:

p1) Train services suffers when combined

p2) Dividing attention of railway does niether commuter or freight well.

C) For a railway to be successful, it must focus on either commuter or freight.

But I could also see this

Argument 2:

p1) Dividing attention of railway does niether commuter or freight well.

p2) For a railway to be successful, it must focus on either commuter or freight.

C) Train service suffer when combined.

I think I am making the assumption in argument 2 that bad service means unsuccessful, and that is why that argument doesn't work as well. But it is still an argument. So how do I know which of the statements are the conclusion?

Mr. White is dead. He was killed with a Special type of kitchen knife. Mr. Green owns that type of kitchen knife but it currently cannot be found in his kitchen. Therefore Mr. Green killed Mr. White

this is more similar to the coffee question, right?