Saying XYZ sold off all of its diesel-powered trucks last year, is really like saying that XYZ sold off all of its (remaining) diesel-powered trucks last year.

Suppose you have a car dealership and you have, say, 20 cars, and you sell one car by the end of each day. On day 11, someone comes in and decides he wants the remainder of your inventory of cars and buys them. On day 12, you do not have any cars left on the lot, but you go into your car dealership to do paperwork or whatever and a prospective car buyer asks you what happened to all your cars. You would probably tell them that you sold off all of your cars yesterday, even though you sold ten out of the 20 cars your car dealership ever had.

I understand that E is sufficient, but I am still not understanding why it is necessary, despite Sharon Wayne's explanation. If E is necessary and it is negated, then it should wreck the argument. However, when E is negated, it does not wreck the argument and this leads me to think that E is not necessary.

Negated answer choice E: It is not the case that any pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should be acceptable.

In other words, there are some pricing practices that do not result in unreasonable prices, but are unacceptable.

Considering either of the statements above, it is unclear as to whether or not predatory pricing is a pricing practice that should or should not be acceptable.

I was down to A and C and had a reason to eliminate A, as well as a reason to choose C, independently of eliminating A. Even after watching the video I am still unclear as to why A is the correct answer.

I eliminated A because one would have to assume that because potatoes are not normally a part of the diet of laboratory rats that eating potatoes would lead them to develop intestinal deformities and a weakened immune system. Making such an assumption did not seem right.

My reason for choosing C, independently of eliminating A, was because the "control group rats", i.e. rats that were fed a normal diet of foods that were not genetically modified, were not specified as being laboratory rats, but rather the stimulus merely referred to them as "rats". I thought that C weakened the argument by suggesting that the laboratory rats were more prone to intestinal deformities than the "control group rats" - which were not necessarily laboratory rats - therefore undermining the support provided by the premise to the conclusion.

Seeing as how answer choice A is the correct one, I am sensing that one would have needed to have interpreted the "otherwise" in answer choice A mean something like "For if it turns out that hiring additional employees will not benefit the company..." in order to conclude that answer choice A best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument in the stimulus.

However, when I read "otherwise" in answer choice A, I interpreted it to mean something like "If middle-level managers who ask their companies to hire additional employees do not have strong evidence that doing so will benefit the company..." It seemed (and still does seem to be the case) to me that answer choice A did not match up with the principle illustrated in the stimulus.

I am having trouble understanding how to interpret "otherwise" in the context it was used. Please do chime in, if you were able to overcome this difficulty and can explain how you did so.

Frankly, I didn't get understand what the example using hatred is talking about :

Regarding the simplified example, does “using a term that is intrinsically evaluative as though it was purely descriptive” mean "to use a term to describe one's own values towards something (is this to intend to use a term in a subjective manner?) as though one was using such a term objectively"?

Thank you, SoCal Japorean.

For anyone else that is struggling with this question in the same way that I did, I found the following portion of JY's explanation to alleviate the uneasiness I had in accepting B to weaken the argument:

"Those are the huge universal assumptions about the evidentiary power of language that the argument makes. (B) denies those assumptions. It denies universality."

I really struggled with this question and eventually got it, but it took a while. I truly appreciate everyone's help. JY, thank you for providing that additional explanation.

It would be nice to know when answer choice C would be a correct answer choice. However, I don't even know when it would be.

So, I too would like an example of answer choice C: "uses a term that is intrinsically evaluative as thought that term was purely descriptive."

The topics are: "V cannot be prescribed" and "H and M are prescribed".

It seems like you applied the group 4 rule to the stimulus, as shown by what you came up with. "Unless" falls under group 3 so you are correct that you should negate something, but the other part of the group 3 rule is that the topic you select to negate should also become the sufficient condition. In this instance, you could select the first topic matter to apply this rule to and you would get "V can be prescribed".

Doing so and putting it back into a conditional would allow it to read "If V can be prescribed, then H and M are prescribed", which is equivalent to V -> H&M, also the equivalent of V -> H and V -> M combined. Seems like JY just chose the split up the necessary condition into two conditionals.

Actually, it does have to be true to weaken the argument. Otherwise, it does nothing to the argument; it would be irrelevant.

Just because it can be true ("something is possible") does not mean it is true. Just because PIE can be one of those languages does not mean that it is.

You are correct in stating that answer choice B makes no assumption, however I am still trying to point out the fact that it is you making the assumption.

Answer choice B provides that there are "some languages...." You are assuming that PIE is one of those languages, merely on the basis that there are "some languages...."

pritisharma, you mentioned that you don't think that we are making such an assumption, and then you go onto making that assumption, as indicated in the explanation of your reasoning...

The issue is in making the assumption that Proto-Indo-European is one of the languages that lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers. One does not get to make assumptions such as these, as stated numerous times by JY in other videos.

Thanks, TackyTrackSuit!

Does a loss in habitat always result in loss of animals though? I do not believe this is always or even necessarily the case, which would not make it an inference. Could it be that animals could merely be displaced? Correct me if I'm wrong.

After reading all of the previous comments that have been posted, I am still struggling to understand why answer choice D would help strengthen the argument, or in other words be an incorrect answer choice.

I chose answer choice D because I thought it did nothing to the argument. For answer choice D to strengthen the argument, I believe one would have to assume that the size of the natural habitat has an effect over the population of amphibians. I can see why this answer choice could block a potential alternative explanation, i.e. the natural habitat became smaller, thus the population of amphibians declined, but only if the assumption I described is made. I did not find this to be a sufficiently reasonable/small enough assumption to make. Without making any assumptions and taking answer choice D as it is, I find that answer choice D does not help strengthen the argument.

Could someone please help me better understand why answer choice D is incorrect, aside from explaining the reasons why answer choice A is correct?

I chose A and after watching the video I can understand why A is misleading. However, when I was reading the answer choices and considering B, I thought "Why assume that Proto-Indo-European is one of the languages that lack words for prominent elements of the environment of their speakers?"

Could someone help me understand why it is safe to make such an assumption, or at least help me understand why B is the correct answer choice (independently of the other four answer choices being incorrect)?

I understand that answer choice E does not weaken the scientist's argument, but I fail to understand why it does not strengthen the argument. Could you please explain why answer choice E does not strengthen the argument, in more detail?