#feedback The whole thing about the argument superlatively implying that we should not hire the other candidates is confusing to me. I guess I intuitively made that connection, if they are arguing for not hiring one of the candidates because of the attributes of another, I assumed that logically, they are arguing for hiring such candidate, if not then why would the principle even apply? Feel free to let it be clear if I should not just make such assumptions, or if it can be dangerous to do so for future questions of this kind.

you --> /video

why this lesson lowkey freaky

i dont think the (justified --> comp tob) contrapositive works either cause we want our conclusion to be (justified), not (not justified). It worked for JY in that point in the video because we had not introduced the conclusion yet, he was simply explaining what reachable conclusions could arise, and why (justified) is not one of them. In this case, we would not be able to conclude for (justified), hence why the second part of the argument is needed. Contrapositive is inappropriate if it isnt gonna lead you to the conclusion you want.

In my opinion, you have to take AC with the premises that are offered in the stimulus. Stim says that because we have the info we need, and leaving the artifacts in the original place helps future people (who dont have our info) not be confused (have inaccurate info), so we shouldnt move the artifacts. But regardless, there are other reasons to move, maybe other people should have the right to see it, maybe we have a moral duty to preserve mosaics. Whatever the reasons may be, 'A' helps justify the reasoning by saying, "the only thing that matters when deciding to move a mosaic, are archeological considerations." in other words, the other reasons for why we might want to move the mosaic are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is archeology.

"Whether to buy government bonds should consider macroeconomic regulation" seems insufficient, but if the premises say something like, "macroeconomic regulation has allowed a promising environment to buy government bonds," then would it not be prudent to buy the bonds? Yes, its not perfect situation, there can be other considerations, but again, thats what A does, it limits such considerations to a world where only the macroecon regulations matter, thats what PSAs can do, make you choose the best possible option, may not be the perfect one, but its much better than the others.

(I didn't expect to write this much, i apologize for the yapping, it helps me improve my understanding as well :D)

"sign me up" me too brother. me too

'A' states "academic fraud in the course of pursing a PHD", he committed fraud at work (after achieving his PHD), so it wouldnt apply!

stimulus didnt state the rule, it would be an instance of them applying it. That why its the right answer choice, if it wasnt the case that harm is proportional to the penalty, the reasoning for leveling the charge could be made another way, a way that contradicts the stimulus, something that a weakening question might ask to do.