this one was harder for me than it shouldve been. i was stuck on A bc of the first guys comment of loyalty. but i guess i should focus on the second guy because he is the one who is actually disagreeing.

so the stimulus is whole to part and the ac is part to whole?

and B isnt the correct answer choice because it is not really flawed?

when i saw E i laughed bc i always see the "pre supposes blah blah blaH" answer choice and think, its never that one. but this time it was XD

i spent almost 4 min on this XD

FR

you can also save a question like 7 sage. basically you can book mark it

she made the real ethereal, in an attempt to make the ethereal permanent.

what is the difference between question difficulty and PSG/Game/S difficulty?

thank you kevin!

im so happy i got this one right. A because D just weakens the other view points. it doesnt strengthen our own.

alhamdulilah

I READ IT AS OVERLY CRITICALLLL

mannn if i noticed it overTly then i wouldve chosen it correctly

would you say Purpose of paragraph questions are similar to MOR questions? it kind of seems like we use structural analysis just like MOR.

me too, anyone have advice?

It seems like knowing the passage style helps you structurally analyze the passage, which in turn helps you analyze its reasoning and come to understand the purpose behind key premises and conclusions.

am I right here?

i need an update bro did you get it?

i need to remember that in flaw subtypes of these parallel reasoning questions, the AC needs to have a flaw too.

the questions stimulus because it says the whole is the same as its parts. and the ac C says the same.

i dont understand how you can possibly do these quickly!!!!?? ugh

i also have this issue #feedback

x→y

/x→z

z→/y (this is where the sufficiency and necessity were mixed)

basically this was the line of logic they made in the stimulus.

that tip on matching the language really helped here. i just need to become more adept at it

Conclusion proven wrong → weakened argument

Weakened argument → Conclusion proven wrong

lol i was just confused on why we were doing rre

i think it would be better to look as this as us assuming the social theorists are going to believe in a logical manner. rather than assuming they don't have the knowledge to make that claim. basically there could be a million reasons as to why they do not have that same beleif.