#help Isn't E attacking the premise? The premise is saying the size of a subregion of the hypothalamus is correlated to the development of disease X. Then, the conclusion takes it a step further and say that there's the causal relationship.

#help

I got tripped up with the "eliminate economic roles" in Answer Choice C. If labor-saving technology was introduced, wouldn't that eliminate economic roles? IE: There wouldn't be any more janitors.

I get the structure of the stimulus. The stimulus is saying that the nucleomorph was found inside the chlorarachniophyte. The nucleomorph has to be the remains of an engulfed organism's nucleus because it contains two versions of a particular gene in its DNA. I'm imagining that the chlorarachniophyte engulfed an organism, and a part of the organism gave way to the functional nucleomorph, which is now found within the chlorarachniophyte. How can answer choice E be the correct answer? E says chlorarachniophyte emerged following the endosymbiosis, but chlorarachniophyte has to already exist before then because it was part of the process of endosymbiosis. The chlorarachniophyte engulfed another organism. Also, how is answer choice C incorrect? I'm having trouble following.

#help

ugh why does he have to write sooo small?

@ said:

Hi! The reason why A is wrong is due to a mistaken translation. So let's map it out together :

devote themselves to the study of natural processes ---> leisure

resources plentiful ----> leisure

but wait..... it also says NOT when resources are scarce so ... resources plentiful ---> leisure

its actually a bi conditional if we chain up (2) (3)

So we get :

devote themselves to the study of natural processes ---> leisure (--------) resources plentiful

In answer choice A ) we get plentiful resources (--some -) devote themselves to natural processes.

Remember this is a mistaken inference and we cannot go backwards from the some arrow all the way back to the study of natural processes. This is an invalid inference

In answer choice C ) agriculture first began in societies that have plentiful resources. How do we know this? Because in the conclusion it says these discoveries were the result of " the active study of natural processes ". If we knew we had the time to study the natural processes then we must have had leisure and THEREFORE must have had plentiful resources.

Why can't you point the arrow from leisure back to the study of natural resources? Why can you point the arrow both ways between leisure and resources plentiful? Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you put some in between plentiful resources and devote themselves to natural processes. Sorry, I'm starting to get a better understanding, but I'm still not all the way there.

Thanks for your time and help!

I think I was tripped up by the double indicator words because I know "required" indicates a necessary condition, but "required" is used in conjunction with "only if" in AC A and "if" in AC C. I easily and quickly eliminated all the other choices because of the word "sufficient." What should I do in the future when I have this problem and how would I know which indicator word to rely on to map out the conditional? #help.

file:///Users/sammywu/Downloads/Screen%20Shot%202020-04-13%20at%2011.47.40%20PM.html

You clearly have the potential. Is there any way at all that you can sit out this cycle and try again? This time, you probably can break into the 170s and you also can apply early next cycle.

.

#help

Please, someone, tell me if my line of process is not correct. I haven't worked with the Advanced Logic section yet.

The stimulus in saying that "being intelligent does not imply that one is wise, nor does being wise imply that one is intelligent" is NOT saying that if you are intelligent, then you are not wise and vice versa but rather it is saying that if you are intelligent, you do not HAVE to be wise. Therefore, there are people who can be both wise and intelligent, so B is incorrect.

I originally chose B because I was thinking that I→W and W→I.