It took me a LONG time to understand why A strengthens the argument.

Here is my thinking:

The stimulus says that P gives interior access through molecular pipelines to essential nutrients that are in the surrounding colony (my understanding is that the bacteria do not need to go outside to the surrounding colony)

AC A is saying that in colonies where there is no P, there are no molecular pipelines so the bacteria has to go outside to the surrounding colony (thus increasing the amount of bacteria that has direct contact with the outside surrounding colony)

Is this right?? #help

the only conclusion im seeing is that i'm dumb. dam.

This passage. Literally what in the world is it saying.

me plz!

is it just me or did JY write the diagram backwards for A?

I thought you negate the sufficient condition. so it would be if you cancel, then small amount of money spent

I got this wrong because I didn't think that "immoral" meant "bad." Did anyone else think this?

#help #feedback

I was extremely confused by this question and after a long time I think I finally understand:

Professor G argues that all PSAPC are legit: PSAPC → Legit

We are also told that Totalitarian governments are not legit: T → legit

Then, we randomly come to the conclusion that Professor G's argument is false: PSAPC → legit

Answer choice C holds up the argument that Professor G is false: if there is a totalitarian government that aims, then it isn't true that ALL psapc's are legit, because we know that totalitarian governments are illegitimate.

When negating C, it becomes that no Ts are PSAPCs. when negated, professor G's argument holds and he is NOT false, because there there are no governments that are PSAPCs that are not legit.

#help #feedback Please let me know if my reasoning is correct!

I'm very interested! My instagram is @ please add me!

This definitely helped! Thanks!!

I would like to join

How can I join?

nvm

@-1 you slayed this.

I am going to get a 168 or higher on the april and june 2024 lsats.

plz message me! I'm interested

me too #help

I have gotten a new outlook on SA all of a sudden:

Small Elite → information that determines welfare

Conclusion: Small Elite → More Frequent Economic Crisis

I realized that for most SA questions you need to make the necessary condition of the premise the sufficient condition and keep the necessary condition of the conclusion as necessary and you will get the answer:

Information that determines welfare decreases → More frequent economic crisis

is this a correct way of thinking?

#help (Added by Admin)

Isn't this a sufficient assumption question?

got this question wrong because I didn't know what aversion meant. ugh.

Could D also be wrong because we technically don't know if they are satisfied or not? I mean, they could say it is too specific / vague but they could still be satisfied.. so negating or not negating it doesn't affect because we do not know.

We also don't know if the intent was to satisfy or not.

me pls!

#help Why is it not A? I was thinking that if there was no methane before 2003 then it would be recent.