The point is that originally it was thought that the technique can only be used to obtain accurate dates up to 200k years ago. the premise following "because" gives a reason as to why the accuracy can go up to a million years ago specifically in cooler regions.

Just because it says concluded doesn't mean it's a conclusion. After all, that's only the scientists' conclusion on their studies, not the author's persuasive conclusion. My tip is to ask "so what?" whenever you think you've come across an argument's conclusion. That sentence doesn't give any leeway to anything that could be argued for or against.

I believe so! It could also be restructured as, "If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. In fact, he asked the police to investigate. Therefore, he is not guilty."

yes, that's why it's under premise indicator. it's a conclusion indicator if it's directly followed by a comma, e.g. "given that, not all mammals are suitable as pets."

as a premise indicator, it's: "given that tigers are aggressive, not all mammals are suitable as pets"

I was also confused on this. I think it's because answer A is the reverse of what we know. We know that all university graduates consider these factors important, but we don't know if all people who consider them important are university graduates. There could be people outside of the RG group that consider WE important, of which we can't assume their stance on salary or other factors. If it started with "at least some" like answer choice B does, then it would likely (also) be correct.

Si!!!! Familia de Valencia y ahora viviendo en NY, y tu?

I'd love to be added as well! Currently aiming for 170 in August

My understanding is that we need to think about what is necessary for something else to occur. The first question answers what is necessary for something to survive, not what is necessary for something to be written down. Written -> Survive assumes that survival is a requirement to be written down, when really, the oral myths being written down are the necessary requirement for survival.

The second sentence then answers what is necessary for something to be written down, which is the truths that people wanted generations to remember (W -> T).

Hope this helps!

These are honestly pretty simple once you draw out the steps, and they become easier to figure out intuitively the more you practice the 4 steps.

Here's how I have my notes for 3.1:

A railroad will not be successful unless it serves its customers well.

1. unless

2. not success, serves

3. /not success > serves

/serves > not success

success > serves

/serves > /success

4. if a railroad is successful, then it serves its customers well

if a railroad does not serve its customers well, then it will not be successful

If a clause already has a negation, I will write it out with the "/" and THEN get rid of the double negatives where applicable. The opposite strategy was used for the 2.x examples

for 7, isn't "whose" also a referential for "an organization"? Thanks!

My understanding is that if it is Leaders sabotage the vote, yes, we will know what leaders (opposition leaders) and know what vote they are sabotaging (on healthcare reform), but that leaves the rest of the sentence (the attempts... will backfire after the story is published) unaccounted for.