I think a hint would be to look for "Current Medical Research shows" to the "Most Rational Public Health Strategy" which means its a transition from current policy to make a change to public health which is to put emphasis on informing people about the microorganism.

The word "Exclusively" should be a hint that only females produce GM62

James: Educational needs is not the same is not true for universities of communities. The primary goal is different.

Margaret: The primary goal is to of any university is to serve the needs of community where it is located

Ok. I will break this down of how I understood this. I first chose A because it said Alder proposed strict environment regulations and that Burke’s environmental policy coincided with the country Interests, therefore Alder seemed more committed to environmental policy or protecting the environment than Buke has . But now looking at answer choice A closely it’s says “throughout their respective careers of the country environmental measures “

We don’t have that information about their respective careers or how how long environmental has been around of taking measures . So A is wrong. C is correct because it’s seems that environmental issues over all issues mentioned carried a heavy weight for Alder’s election so it played an important role. Even though Buke offered a more effective strategies for dealing with “most” of the counties problems, but overall voters decided the environmental policy carried a heavier weight so that played an important role in the votes concerns so they chose Alder over Burke.

I kinda understand this argument now after going through my logical process. We are looking for a resolution for the dilemma.

What is the dilemma?

One one side we are presented with candidates spending as much as they want on political campaigns.

On the other side we are presented with democratic gov. presenting that a candidate spending as much as they want on a campaign gives them an unfair advantage over the rest.

What is a resolution resolution to prevent outspending?

We can out a limit on political campaign spending. Lets say the limit is $5,000 per candidates no candidate can spend more than other because of the limit.

I was kinda hesitant with between answer choice B and C. But I understand why C is not the answer. It is rejecting against what is presented in the stimulus that governments should not subsidize / give $ for expensive campaigns to each candidate.

I chose C thinking the differences of diet is what has a impact. But C is incorrect because variance is irrelevant. We are trying to support that because the early humans had fewer dental problems is because healthy diet is significant to that. The reason why I did not choose E because of the word "most significant" i thought that we don't know if it was most significant.

I originally chose B because I thought that we must only monthly expenses is necessary for business to over expand and that critical for using cash flow statements? I did not really understand the premise/conclusion . I got tripped up by the word "only" thinking that businesses must only look at monthly expenses in order to benefit from cash flow statements. B is wrong because it is specifically talking about only businesses ( that has over expanded) that is the modifier. We have to support why the use of cash flow statements are critical to cover both monthly and non monthly expenses an

But here is why D is correct. It supports that why the use of cash-flow statements are critical and that is to cover the non -monthly expenses. That is the assumption we have to make to strengthen our argument.

It might help to think of this questions like that:

Lets look at the last sentence:

There is little reason to believe that there something badly wrong which means that the judges are qualified to decide upon the reasonableness of a government reasonable decision.

Good way to think of this. It tells us that Muscular strength is limited which means that superior mastery of techniques is needed. The clue is Muscular Strength is limited.

The way I see D is that because they already had high concentrations of galanin this caused them to crave fatting foods. his bridges are gap.

Our assumption high levels of G→F

Therefore G→F

On blind review I did not choose B because of the word "proficiently" I thought that we do not know if done proficiently. I orginally chose A. But I understand why incorrect. We do not know if they are being watched "closely"

At first I did not choose answer choice A because I thought that we do not know why employers utilize technology or a reason. But then looking closely It tells us that the technology became widely used because it was economically attractive.

Conclusion: Modern aircraft navigational systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices that passengers carry on board.

Why?

One plane with a low-power circuitry veered off the course during landing when a passenger turned on his laptop.

A) This strengths that the laptop is what caused the plan to veer off so when the passenger shut off his laptop the plan regained its navigation instruments and dials returned to normal.

B) This strengthens. Its telling us that electronic devices interfere with the circuitry.

C) This strengthens. Its telling us that when passengers don't use electronic devices there is no navigational issues. This still supports arguments that electronic devices are causing aircrafts to be put at risk.

D) I originally selected D because I did not read it closely. I thought it said that electro magnetic radiation is good in electronic devices because its travels up to eight meters. I thought this was least supported or would weaken the argument because I thought that it was implying that it electronic devices are good.

But D is right because its telling us specifics of how radiation from devices would affect planes.

E) E is correct because it does not strengthen . It tells us that planes were equipped at the same time electronic device became popular. How does this help? First it doesn't tell us whether low power circuity is bad for planes or how electronic devices impact safety on planes.

Yes, this supports smiths argument the last premise that " We cannot give children the right to vote" supports such limitations on full democracy of denying children to vote," it should be accepted.

I am tracking why I missed this question. First I did not pay attention to the stimulus. The language contains "Only" and "even"

Requirements for Conclusion

One should buying frying pan→ because it has warranty

Objections/ conditions

1.One should buy a frying pan requires paying more and

2. One should buy a pan even if on one seeks does not get money back if the pan broke or did not work well.

Premise:

If manufactures offer warranty→ They should not offer warranty to people that are not happy with the pan or if the pan did not last long.

Lets translate A: I hate how the video explains because I feel that still don't understand it.

A) We need to assume that most people buy frying pans with warranty because they seek to get reimbursement if the pan fails to work well or last long

So the author makes a statement that manufactures will not offer warranty to those who seek reimbursement strictly if the product does not work well or lasts long.

B) I originally chose B in Blind review but I understand why it is wrong. If pan that have no warranty works as good as the pans that does have warranty. Then why are we saying we one should buy a pan strictly because it has warranty? Why do we have to pay extra for a pan that has warranty when a pan that does not have warranty works at least as well? Confusing..

C) is wrong because that is not our argument. We are not concerned about cost. We are saying that despite paying more one buys a frying pan only because it has warranty despite of costs.

Our argument is that if manufactures offer warranty, it will not be offered to people seeking reimbursement if a products does not work well or last long.

D) We don't know that the most expensive the man is the more it will last? the argument is not not expensive pans.

E) E Is tricky. I did not choose it. People tend to assume that if people cant seek reimbursement on pans then it must be that they are good/ provide satisfaction so people don't have to seek money back if the pans don't work well or last long.

I chose C. I thought " is not safer" implies no increase in safety.

I chose E because of the last sentence. Actually through process of elimination you can get to answer choice E. It says that histamines plays no role in the process by which colds produce no symptoms that a clue to paraphrase answer choice E

A, B, C, D.. are answers are not mentioned in stimulus. Being Effective. How do we know? Pollen and allergy not causing colds. How do we know? Also antihistamines when blocked causes drowsiness/ sleepiness so its is not effective that sleepiness can be effective at treating antihistamine.

E) yes correct. Any effect of antihistamines that may have at reducing cold symptoms it not through histamines because histamines plays no role in the processes in which cold symptoms does not play a role.

Sorry some grammer mistakes and transaltion errors

We are told that Everybody knows that book can deliver to exceptional success. So therefore it should not be considered unethical. The contrapositive that knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if people accept the claim as true (that a book can be delivered as exceptional success ), then that will be considered unethical.

We are told that Everybody no that book can deliver to exceptional success. So therefore it should be considered unethical. The contrapositive that knowingly making a false claim is unethical only if people accept the claim as true that a book can be delivered as exceptional success , then that will be considered unethical.

If not true( everyone knows books cant deliver exceptional success → then not unethical

unethical→if true( books can deliver exceptional success)

"Only if" indicates (necessary condition.)

Conclusion: We should raise taxes.

C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted.

What is the measure?

Government providing homeless people with homes and increasing taxes.

logical translation:

S (solving homeless issue) →G( government intervention/ Help)→ R( raising taxes)

Required→Should be adopted

A) is wrong. It opposite. Its saying Adopted→only if required.

B) Not sufficient . Required Condition

D) Not sufficient . Required Condition

E) Not sufficient . Required Condition

Premise: Human discovery or invention is self expression, according to what people claim. But what they seem to ignore is that trivially anything we do is self expressive

Conclusion: So until they can give us a more interesting interpretation of their claim . We are not obliged to take their claim seriously.

C) T→ not WSS: If Trivial, then not worthy of serious consideration

(Not worthy of serious consideration) is the same as saying ( we are not obliged to take claim seriously)

So until they can give us a more interesting interpretation of their claim . We are not obliged to take their claim seriously.

Lets translate this:

Obliged to take seriously →More interesting interpretation of their claim

Not more interesting interpretation of their claim→ Not more obliged to take seriously

A) we are not saying claims are uninteresting .We are saying we need a "more interesting interpretation of claim"

B) Ok. Cool. We don't care about what most people think. It does not help our argument.

D) Ok cool. We don't care if claims are both interesting or uninteresting. We are trying support making a more interesting interpretation of claim.

E) Ok cool. Does not impact or strengthen our argument. Either or? irrelevant.

I now understand why I got my answer incorrect. I originally chose answer choice E but then thinking that own conscious in ones own experience and that one or society thinks should be followed but should from ones own conscious. Incorrect.

C) We are saying the best way to proceed is by knowing what you are familiar with in this case its your child so it best to ignore the experts advice and follow what you are familiar with . The mountain climber example relates that a mountain climber knows what he is familiar with and to ignore someone who is an expert that is not familiar with that mountain. In other you know yourself better anyone else/you are familiar with your own situation/ child/ experience.

I picked E because I thought that conclusion stating that conversation policies impact the poaching. I tried to connect poaching with conservation of protecting elephants from extinction. Wrong this would weaken. We know that Zimbabwe have eliminated poaching. They are objecting to the ivory trade ban. They are receiving income from culling elephants. They are using the ivory to make income. They are not directly poaching animals. That is the arguments being made.

C is correct. International measures to correct a problem ( Extinction of elephants) should not affect countries like ( Zimbabwe) because they have eliminated poaching are not responsible. They are still affected because they are including Zimbabwe by imposing a total ban on ivory.

It’s takes more skill to play the banjo then to the guitar . If your the banjo then you also play the guitar.

If you play Guitar , it mean that can play banjo also.

I got the answer correct but did not get the conditional correct. I was a little lost on chaining up the logic. I was almost close but took the longer was by doing this. L → /P contrapostive p →/L did not use the some←s→ relationship also i did the longer of saying R→/p contapostive p→/R . Again the did not knowing how to chain the conditional logic. I took forever on using the negative and contapostive when I can just be seeting up the logic without contapostive