#feedback #help can someone explain this? I eliminated C for the same reason

That’s my understanding of it — we take all the premises (including major premises/sub-conclusions) to be true, and the reasoning that we are attacking in flaw Qs has to be between premises and MAIN conclusion

Piecemeal strategy is splitting the AC into two, to inspect how the premise and the conclusion each operate in the argument.

The AC in MoR questions often separates the premise from the conclusion with the word “by”: in this question’s correct answer;

B) (rebutting an objection) BY (attacking the assumption on which it is said to be based).

The first bracket is describing how the argument’s conclusion works: he is (rebutting the objection) with his conclusion “but this is not so”

The second bracket describes how the premise works: he is (attacking the assumption on which the argument is based) since critics PRESUME that egalitarian societies = bland uniformity

It’s not clear to me from the stim that there is a second conjunctive rule indicated by “in addition”.. I was tempted to just chain conditionals like this:

usable evidence → justified → comp typically used

I got the right answer but didn’t think to lay it out the same way as JY. Is my version incorrect?

#feedback

Can anyone explain how this is so different from using causal logic and dealing with WSE questions? I can’t grasp how it’s different conceptually and JY often points to how different these “feel”.. I do not feel it lol

Answer A does receive support for why people would resist technological innovations, despite miserable working conditions — which is what makes it the correct answer.

With weaken questions, we have to find the answer that is supported by the premises — weakening the proposed hypothesis, because it has the advantage of being true.

#feedback #help

Q11: HBO Max subscribers from the US can stream Game of Thrones Seasons 5-8 Remake only if they have maintained an active subscription for more than one year.

Why is "1+ year" the necessary condition in the answer? It follows "if", so doesn't it follow that IF 1+year (sufficient), THEN they can stream?

"politicians being corrupt" is the necessary condition because it follows "only when".