i think what helps me a little bit is, i understand the distribution of average affects the conclusion, thinking of the argument flaw as generalization. I originally had thought that well maybe both hospitals treat different illnesses, but when I saw that they had similar recovery rates for similar illnesses I dismissed this flaw. now looking at it, it seems silly that I did because there's an unlikely chance that two distinct hospitals treat the SAME exact illnesses, so it would be invalid to push that generalization up to ALL patients from those in the study that had similar illnesses. we are not told that the whole hospital at both have the same, so we should not assume that gives support that the average length of stay should be decreased.

for some odd reason i was registering the earnings of these people as the doctors/employees of the ground/air transport to specialized centers. after seeing that it is actually referring back to those ppl that survive, it makes so much more sense lol

i do understand the explanation, it makes sense but at the same time I am confused because it seems like Robbins does understand the art well enough to dismiss it so why are we crossing it out/negating it?

There is an outline of requirements on LSAC for getting approved for ADHD testing accommodations. It was honestly a really easy process, you'll just need your doctor to fill out a form and write a brief summary regarding your diagnosis and needing extra time. Also, the testing center already knows if you have been approved for your accommodation. I took it in June and did not have to say anything. You'll see when you register for the testing center that it has extended time allowed. Lastly, I would highly suggest maybe getting noise cancelling ear plugs from CVS. The testing center can be kind of distracting with people coming in and out of the testing room or background noise with people checking in with the proctors. Those were a life saver bc my ADHD does not function if I am distracted lol

how would you write out the conditional logic for "there are no edible daisies, at least not any that are palatable"????

so i have a question, when learning about the main points for single position passages, we are told that when the author is NOT the source of the perspective the MP is the fact that another source advances that perspective. so I originally had the correct answer for the main point of the passage but confused myself during blind review because of this lesson and choose answer choice E-- the prediction that the scientist had. if it had not been a prediction but rather a fact, would that have been the correct answer?? idk i feel like im confusing myself for no reason since the author didnt have an opinion. can someone clarify

what would be an example of an argument for answer choice e

i want to make sure so with necessary causes, absence of effect does not imply absence of cause. With sufficiency causes, it is true that absence of cause does not imply absence of effect. I just wanna make sure I have this right.

okay so sometimes knowing where the arrow should be placed is sometimes confusing to me. so with the correlation in the economists argument, y is confidence in ME on the left hand side of the arrow instead of the right with will spend money. is it because we are trying to reach that necessary condition based on critics argument? im not sure if this make sense or not but i was just curious cause it says "studies show that spending trends correlate very closely with people's confidence in their own immediate economic situation."

when did we learn about rule application-- i am drawing a blank and cant find it in my notes can someone please help direct me to what lesson that was covered on

i think for me i was genuinely confused in paragraph 2 when they began to talk about the reason for the contamination. i was registering the "wells" being drilled as the drinking water wells lmao. i have no idea y i thought that but thats y i got number 2 wrong

for some reason i really confused myself with this passage by thinking "earlier criticism" was not associated with modern commentators. Now that I am looking back on it, it kinda seems like a silly mistake since we are only introduced to that one perspective-- commentators-- and earlier criticism is immediately followed by introduction to topic.