@Oblivion I think it's to signal that the phrases are interchangeable. If Luke is a Jedi <-> then Yoda trained him. If Yoda trained Luke <-> then Luke is a Jedi.

I came back to this at the end of the "Conditional and Set Logic" portion because I was still a little confused on the definitions. But reading it again with the information I have now, the "Let's Review" section makes way more sense. If it's a little confusing now, keep pushing, it might make more sense for you towards the end.

crockpotting

@joannaw "The only" is a sufficient indicator; "only" and "only if" are necessary indicators. Question 3 states "the only oral myths..." means that oral myths will be the sufficient indicator.

@SimonNavarrete Both work if they get you the right answer. But the comparison is saying pandas are more genetically similar to bears, than pandas are to raccoons. Not if raccoons are closer to bears or if pandas are closer to bears.

With the information in this question, there is no reason to assume that a raccoon is not more genetically similar to a bear than a panda is to a bear. All we know is that a panda is more genetically similar to a bear than a panda is to a raccoon.

@Sameer_Ahamad

I am guessing you mean what is the subject and predicate for the object clause since it is a clause.

My best bet is:

Subject: "It" a referential for "Library"

This would be a one subject two predicates situation...

Predicate [1]-

Verb: unable

Object: the rest w/ modifier

Predicate [2]-

Verb: displays

Object: the rest w/ modifiers

@Sameer_Ahamad Yes because it is only lacking support and the added statement would offer the missing support.

@chloeg6676 I am not a tutor, however, I would say no. Context is essentially the introduction to the argument. Unless there was context to a sub conclusion and then context for the next conclusion, I think it would only be in the beginning.

@LindseyGasaway The first sentence states that "Train service suffers when a railroad combines." It does not specify in what way it suffers, but it does suffer. The following describes the combination that is causing the train service to suffer and explains that it suffers because "a railroad serves neither particularly well" (because its attention is divided). The final statement "Therefore, if railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets" is supported by the first two sentences. The train services business is suffering because it is inattentive to customers when it is combined with freight and commuters. The conclusion offers the solution, that it must concentrate exclusive on one of those markets to have a successful business. But also what do I know, we are all here reviewing and this probably sounds wordy. Hopefully, this offered mild clarity.

@AngelaOcana Sadly, I don't think there is a definitive answer to that. I believe that it is situational. Any fact you know to be true that is not stated is just that "reasonable assumption" they're talking about. I believe that the time not to assume, is when the text directly goes against what you would normally assume to be true. We know that 2+2=4, and it is safe to assume that when necessary. But, if a question explicitly states 2+2=5, that assumption is no longer right. You cannot make that assumption, your real-world knowledge does not outweigh the text in the passage.

@NicholasRestrepo word

@Katiesue14 same exact boat as you, good luckk