@DeeTee does this work for Core subscribers as well? or do we need to upgrade to Live?

i had a diagnostic of 155 2 years ago. i prepped for one year, like lots of money and time put into it and got a 156... i just feel so defeated and don't know what to do maybe law school isn't for everyone

conc: actual # did not increase

ok so just find AC that says Xincrease (constant)

C: "remained roughly constant" fireeeee

Conc (specific): smoke

Prem: BL + g found, produce a lot of smoke.

Assumption: ppl intentionally used BL+g for a specific reason (smoke)

Weaken: ppl had no other choice, it was not intentional.

B: (no other plants burned more effectively than BL+g) = yea so they had no other better choice, smoke was just an effect and not the purpose of choosing that plant.

I think it's easier to think of it like this:

Prem: CERTAIN bad pesticide (certain = specific)

Conc: health risk for US consumers (overall/gen)

JUMP: specific premise --> general conclusion.

WEAKENING spec --> gen: just point out that the premise is too specific to prove a general conclusion.

C is a way to say that the premise is too specific bc US is not the only bad pesticide source. there are OTHER sources of bad pesticide (general) that may affect US consumers.

Assumption: US consumers only get affected by US pesticides (there are no other bad pesticide sources that affect them) <-- just weaken this with C

hi! i'm interested

hi! how can i reach out to you? i am very interested!