I chose e because I thought, due to other countries providing cheaper prices, other countries are manufacturing and buying from them instead of that country, leading to less international trade. I can see the other side of that should also result in us buying from them and therefore the intention trade is still the same.

to make sure, if the argument used the contrapositive, it would be valid.

if it wasn't labeled then people didn't get upset.

why couldn't that be one of the possible fears? I understood that as one's.

#help (Added by Admin)

haha, I made the same mistake. Just brush on the premise and conclusion list. I missed that for introduces a premise, therefore the sentence before was the conclusion.

how did you get there? I am struggling with this section and would appreciate your suggestion!

if I didn't understand what irrigation means, how can I translate it, since another sentence uses it with a different meaning that could be understood as"switched"?

#help Added by Admin

I might be overthinking this. I like c but when you're saying less mph→ less → less. aren't you shifting the arrow ←?

I wouldn't say I like c but now I get it. I assumed it said they eat as much fat as meaters each steak. but its saying there are eating the same amount of fatty food like cheese in addition to the steak. D is saying that non meat eaters replace meat with fat.

can someone pleaseeee answer this!

hahaha pat made me take 8 minutes for this question

I am not sure I fully understand the question but its because we took the contra positive to complete the chain. hope I answered the question.

to clarify, does only one of the conditions need to be satisfied or does either? so could it be economic success only or protecting individual liberty only to have overall success or are they tied together?

#help Added by Admin

do you have any tips on breaking this down into understandable language? I couldn't translate half of the paragraph or the answers

#help Added by Admin

during the test how are you supposed to be aware of such situations

"In other words, could mere knowledge that you're receiving treatment cause you to experience therapeutic benefits? If the answer is "no," then knowledge has no causal power and hence it doesn't matter that we failed to control for it. But, as it turns out, the answer is "yes." Mere knowledge that you're receiving treatment can, in some circumstances, cause you to experience therapeutic effects."

what if I am not aware of the placebo effect?

#help (Added by Admin)

this was helpful, what's the difference with causation? its smoking causing lung cancer?

Thank you, but doesn’t unless indicate a nessecarry condition? So it would be /discount - /volume ?

Doesn’t the contra positive for (most people who have not received such training cannot.) mean that Anna was trained. #HELP PLEASE.

My thought was. The argument is /t‑m→/rl. Therefore rl‑m→t.

I am confused please help!

I agree! I just found the video explanation in v1 and it was super helpful.

What about the quantifier for every and any? We Can transulate the contra positive correct?

#help (Added by Admin)

Is there any available examples on or but not both? To my understanding this means that it can only be one sided so how is it bilateral? An explanation would kindly be very appreciated

#help (Added by Admin)

Basically since t can’t connect then it’s not in the top chain and is on the outside chain. It’s kind of like a puzzle connecting the same symbols. For example if you have 1-2 and you see 2-3 you connect it to 1-2-3. so since w- /s has /s at the end but there is a beginning chain with /s you connect the dots to w- /s - /q and continued

Glad I am not alone!

For question 3.1, why is the sentence “But this is not a sustainable, long term solution” not a major premise/ sub conclusion?

#help (Added by Admin)

Does this sentence “Given enough time and resources, the polluted Paul River might be purified.” Contain another premise and conclusion?

#help (Added by Admin)