ohhhhh so the argument ignored the possibility that the patients had a treatable condition that was not mentioned in the stimuli. got it. It had nothing to do with the therapist or their practices; it boiled down to an unmentioned condition. nice.

oh? a report on eyesight is subjective? ok

"Actually, if a preposition or conjunction should be capitalized, then it’s not in the middle of the title or it’s not shorter than five letters." Is it possible to reword these explanations? I feel like its lazy to just negate it and then act like: "NOT. You get it right?! You get why it's wrong now that its negated"

@tspinnanger it's a bait, it got me too. 7sage needs to be careful when they toss the term "irrelevant" because other companies are usually irrelevant right? However, it's not the company itself, it's what the company does that's irrelevant. One would think, increased sales = increased profits, right? but we don't know the current status of the company, they could be on the brink of bankruptcy and need a sales increase of 87% percent in order to turn a profit. Essentially, A was the strongest answer that contains an "irrelevant" company, but in the same vein, that "irrelevant" company is subject to a relevant practice (the offering, or lack thereof, of free shipping.) It makes sense what the author is purporting, however what's lacking is proper explanations from this platform.

to those who were confused like me: you're strengthening the connection between lack of translated Homeric works and the lack of interest from Arab Poets, because after all, if they did have Homeric works then they would be in demand and "would certainly" have supplanted the use of Aristotle by medieval Arab philosophers. POE helps more than listening to explanations from people who are under the impression that they're smarter than you, so they think that these highly convoluted explanations are somewhat helpful.

@hernandezarly03122 i prefer kevin

y'all might as well leave the explanations blank at this point.

ok. so none of the corporate sponsors withdrew their support for THIS year, and that is sufficient to properly draw that next year will be the same? I'm having a hard time believing that.

so, what part do they talk about basically ignoring the other argument. I think I missed that lesson.

would be cool if you did more than like 1 example of these................

might as well just discard the little lightbulbs which contain the "explanations" for each answer.

Who ever wrote this must have never worked manual labor for poor wages.

@JohnYule I thought the same thing, but I don't think this is making a conditional statement more like a biconditional but even then, I didn't see it like that at first. I spent like 30 seconds thinking about it but "accompanied" didn't trigger necessity or sufficiency in my mind so I understood it as the two things (doubling transistors and doubling cost) to be affected simultaneously. Almost like a graph with an x axis and y axis. Its explained better in the last 2 minutes of the video.

@ArthurWasilewski reading this question lit a lightbulb because I was thinking the same thing. So, if members of the club can receive coupons, other non-members can receive it as well. I may be wrong but receiving a coupon is a sufficient condition, it guarantees that only the superset of members can redeem it at only those 2 locations. But since pat, who received a coupon, cannot redeem it at the only 2 stores that members can, then we can infer that Pat is one of the non-members that CAN receive a coupon. idk if that helps, but writing this out did help me.

So E is insinuating that the speaker is saying companies will last forever? I’m having a hard time believing that

so... strengthen: weakening the support to strengthen the hypothesis. Weaken: strengthen the support to weaken the hypothesis?

@KayleeMurray so with #2, if sufficient is negated then both necessary conditions fail independently?