my jaw is on the ground

may thou cook.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it might be the difficulty of the actual wording of the stimulus and answers, that the phrasing/topic is more or less difficult to read and understand

there's a time stamp for each answer... if you already know an answer is wrong you can skip it or choose to view an explanation for why one that was confusing was wrong/hear the explanation for the right answer choice. they don't get paid per video we watch lmao + there's also a x1.4/1.7 speed if you want to speed through the video. the way you approach the curriculum is completely up to you.

I feel that comparing these question types to PSA to such an extent has made the curriculum confusing, thinking about them in an MSS/MBT sense or even standalone would be more beneficial because I really don't see how we're finding the rule, we're looking for an answer choice that would make the argument solid, less vulnerable - not really trying to justify it or search for the rule it conveys

I actually just got to the correct answer because I was back and forth between both of them, but reading closely, D says that there were "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the computer was used in the business of the "suspected smuggling" none of the details were actually concrete. Meanwhile, in answer choice B, the firm was already on trial and they clearly knew that it was a public company computer that was a part of the business, therefore not needing their authorization.

I think just looking at answer D, even though it doesn't say it explicitly, it wouldn't be too far of a reach to say that they would be checking his computer as evidence since they suspect the person they confiscated it from is a smuggler, which their goal would be to arrest/find evidence of. The rule says "reasonable grounds" to believe that there could be evidence "in ADDITION" to the fact that it must be a public company computer, which they wouldn't need authorization to access. I think the first rule is actually the one that undeniably has to be followed because the second one of the legal proceeding is added to it. The real dealbreaker is the fact they had no clear assurance in whether it was even his personal or business computer, where in answer choice B it is undeniable.

It doesn't have to necessarily align with our view though. In the question we're just trying to strengthen what the argument is saying under the assumption that the answer choice is true. Since the argument is claiming that the amount of tornadoes hasn't increased, but that technology has gotten better, C is really the only answer choice that makes that argument a lot stronger.

If you read it carefully I don't think they're trying to make that assumption at all. The stimulus mentions that sunscreen has had more widespread use followed by the conclusion that since the rate of skin cancer continues to grow, sunscreen must not truly be effective.

Now looking at answer B it says that "skin cancer develops among the very old as a result of sunburns experienced when they were young." This weakens the argument, not by making the assumption that sunscreen didn't exist, but by weakening the conclusion that the widespread usage of sunscreen currently is not working. Since these older people got bad sunburns when they were young, it doesn't mean that sunscreen didn't exist, maybe they just didn't use it or laid out to tan, who knows. But if it is assumed to be true, per the question stem, then those people would be feeling the effects of skin cancer now.

So the rising statistics are due to those older people increasingly getting cancer from their bad sunburns which weakens the conclusion that sunscreen must not be effective because the conclusion alone can be implying that it doesn't currently work and people that currently use it, that don't get sunburns, are getting skin cancer while protecting themselves with sunscreen.

you shouldn't bring in your outside knowledge of topics to make assumptions about what they're saying. it's not an argument because to connect the statements you have to make assumptions to reach and make them connect. to analyze whether a premise supports a conclusion you have to take it at face value, and just by reading these two statements, there isn't any which one that is truly lending support to the other.

it is more reasonable to think that an actor memorized his part very accurately, due to how many times he possibly practiced them, and not have given as much mind to the other parts, than an onlooker remembering those lines perfectly, when we can't really assume they even had a script of the lines to look at after they had seen the play - or clearly, even a copy of Hamlet to read after.

it might seem counterintuitive.... but tbh look at the current state of the US lol, also the almost all doesn't mean that the others don't think negatively of him, just that almost all of the ones that do already had that perception