@jennawiese Sure! Let's say the conclusion is "I am a really good baker."

An answer choice that would strengthen but not be necessary is "I have baked for the past 15 years and won several international baking competitions." This definitely supports the conclusion and could arguably be considered sufficient, but it is not necessary.

There are other ways to be considered a really good baker! What if you haven't won any international baking competitions, but you've been baking for the past 30 years and own your own bakery?

Hope that helps.

@Bruh I would think about it this way: if the author only had 10 seconds to get their point across, what would they say? There is no individual freedom without social integrity? Nope. Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity? Nope.

It's the conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law.

Then, you could ask: Why? Why can there be no individual freedom without the rule of law?

And that would then lead to the premises.

Hopefully imagining it that way helps! Otherwise, you can just think of "for" as a premise indicator.

@jennawiese The first sentence says "only if" (necessary condition indicator). Justified --> business computer. Contrapositive: /business computer --> /justified.

The second sentence says "if" (sufficient condition indicator). Business computer and RGBEL --> justified.

If the answer choice has /justified as the conclusion, you know you're dealing with the first sentence.

Similarly, if the answer choice has justified as the conclusion, you know you're dealing with the second sentence.

Hope that helps!

@IsabellaP The "one-off phenomenon" is cars leaving the specific parking lot. Let's say it's located in Washington, DC. Sure, there are multiple cars being studied, but they're all within this one lot. It's not like we're examining lots in DC, New York, Chicago, etc.

The conclusion says that the delays were due to possessiveness, but it doesn't say "only at this one parking lot in DC." Thus, we are hypothesizing that possessiveness causes delays in leaving parking spaces IN GENERAL.

@IsabellaP A hypothesis would explain the facts that we observe. In other words, why is it that the molecules are always present in two forms? Why does one form kill weeds, and the other has no effect?

Does the data being misleading explain these facts? No, so it is not a hypothesis. Rather, it's a conclusion drawn from the facts.

@IsabellaP What did you see these premises as, if not purely descriptive?

@aswarre3 I got it wrong initially but right on BR. The second time I focused on reading carefully and noticed that the link between anti-inflammatory drugs (a-acid) and immune cells was not clear. That led me to AC B, which explicitly states the relationship between a-acid and immune cells. Broadly speaking, I guess what could work best for this question is noticing that there's an assumption being made (a-acid impacts immune cells) and see if any of the AC's address this assumption. Otherwise, I guess PoE is the best method.

@jennawiese Think about it this way: Say you've signed up to participate in a study about whether medication X helps to relieve headaches. If you show up and are given nothing, not even a sugar pill, then you know for sure you're not part of the treatment group.

Anyone else feel like the explanation for why A is wrong is unsatisfying?

If A instead said "It is important that medical providers apply labels to fMRIs of patients' brains," would that be weakly implied?

I think B would still be the best answer -- just trying to brainstorm a possible trap.

@IsabellaP

Relative difference: X is bad COMPARED to Y.

Absolute difference: X is bad.

AC B is wrong because the example is based on a comparison: use the medicine if not using it would cause MORE harm.

If the example were instead written as an absolute claim, it would look something like "Use the medicine if not using it would cause SIGNIFICANT harm."

Hope that makes more sense!

#feedback the explanation for why B is wrong would have made much more sense if it started with the relevant text (Though... engines) instead of discussing a hypothetical analogy that we shouldn't make.