If i'm only responsible for weakening the second argument, is it even necessary for me to read the first? For this question, it didn't seem necessary, but I wonder if it is always a waste of time or if the writers will somehow require us to read it for other questions. #help

Is it worth it to write down the lawgic to get a better grip on these more complex stimuli or is it usually too costly? Although it would have taken time to write it down, I feel like I spent way more juggling them in my mind's eye

I'm failing to see where the passage suggests that the illustrations will be used as a supplement rather than a replacement. I am not necessarily saying that it seems like the passage is suggesting replacement, but nothing in the last paragraph leads me to believe that they will be used together or separate. I would even argue that the phrase "are especially valuable in that they provide visual representations of data whose verbal descriptions would otherwise be very complex" causes me to lean towards the idea that the illustrations would actually replace the verbal descriptions. Can anyone help?

even if the bridge was built in the correct direction for D, wouldn't the language still be insufficient? If the answer changed the order, it would still only allow you to conclude that any world view INVOLVES interpretation of reality, rather than IS an interpretation of reality

fio

I am a bit confused on analysis of answer A on question 25. J.Y. points out that it is not possible for the author to believe that there exists an action outside of voluntary or involuntary. I perceived the author's description of the risk incurred by a plane passenger to be not exhaustively categorized by involuntary or voluntary because the risk can land on a spectrum somewhere in between. What am I missing?