also interested! sahar.h@adenx08280.edu

Yes, I'm in the same position and am very down to do this!

hi, I'd love to join the group! my email is sahar.hashemian96@sugliacj549.com

By being an "sympathetic reporter," our author is mostly just giving a synopsis on the theory that Carrol and Chen are putting out. Zealous is a bit too strong for this passage. It would make more sense to categorize the passage with a zealous tone had the author been more advocating for it, such as "Their theory redefined this field of science and should be looked and praised more closely," or something along those lines. Our author doesn't use that strong kind of language throughout the passage.

I think the main takeaway that really helped me with understanding the tone was not trying to infer too much. Remember that sympathetic can mean agreeable. And innovative does not have to mean something has a positive connotation to it or that the author is excited about it. Having an innovative theory can mean it is a transformative and new theory (transformative or new =/= praiseworthy). We cannot infer from those grounds that the theory was amazing or on the flip side, that the theory was on the bad side of being transformative. Hope this helps!

We want an answer choice that discusses the decision Tatiana made to not replace Ted. I was stuck between E and A, and chose E originally. However, when going back, E's dicussion of "contributions not a function of amount of time being spent on the job" is not what our principle is stating. Even if this is correct (which we know it is, since he made 'irreplacable contributions' and did not work long hours), it doesn't necessarily touch on if Ted should be replaced or not.

(A) is correct because it justifies the reasoning behind Tatiana's decision. By triggering the sufficient (request a replacement --> work can be done equally well by all other employees), the necessary is met, and we know then that Ted's work cannot be replaced by other employees.

This is amazing, congrats on your huge jump!! I would love to hear of any study tips you have / how many hours you studied for and what your routine was.

We want an answer that makes the switch back to oil likely.

(A) strengthens the argument. If cost to heat homes with natural gas has gone down, then that is more incentive to keep using natural gas.

(B) is irrelevant because it does not address the sub-group the argument is attacking: those who are using natural gas and need to switch back to oil. This group already has the equipment, so it doesn't matter if equipment cost for this has gone down.

(C) is contradictory. It says that both oil AND equipment costs are going down. It doesn't weaken the argument.

(D) does weaken because it gives a reason why someone would make the switch from natural gas to oil. Lower oil price AND lower cost of equipment needed to heat the house with oil.

(E) doesn't attack argument. It just re-states that oil use has declined.

#help I originally picked A but I do now understand the logic behind why answer choice B is correct. My question is why wouldn't you diagram the other 2 statements?