Subscription pricing
Hey all was reviewing some MC conclusion questions and stumbled upon 2 structurally similar stimuli in exam PT 85 S2 10 and PT 73 S4 11. At a glance they are near identical with a claim endorsed by the author, followed by an opponent view which is then rebutted by the author. I find it hard to distinguish how the MC in 73 would be the rebbutle versus how 85 would say the MC is the original claim up top.
I feel like the answer and difference to this question has to do with how in 85 all premises and such would link back to the first sentence as the main conclusion whereas in 73, the first sentence is unsupported as nothing suggests that the company will develop weaknesses. However, it's kind of challenging to internalize that difference, everyway I view one of them I could easily apply to the other. Wonder what the rest of you guys think.
Ah I see this took me a bit to digest it all. Thanks a lot!
I guess the takeaway here could be to look deep into what exactly is being argued since PT73.4.11 now I can see has nothing to do with the truth of the first sentence, and more to do with how X is important, unlike how others suggest (making it the MC). While PT85.2.10 on the other hand is about the truth of the claim in the first sentence so it all comes back to supporting why Z is the best explanation for X.