This question took me a lot of time but i still dont get why A is the answer because in A arent we affirming the consequent which is a conditional logic error ( if x then y - all poor then honest ; if y then x - all honest if poor )???

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

Guys, so for N.A we have the flip test for the answer to see if the assumption is necessary or not. Is there something like that for the Sufficient Assumption questions?

Thanks xx

A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to

garden plants, though only if it is diluted at least to

ten parts water to one part fungicide.Moreover, this

fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery

mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it

completely from rose plants. Thus this fungicide, as

long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of

eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that

involves no risk of harming the plants.

Which one of the following is an assumption on

which the argument depends?

(A) There is not an alternative method, besides

application of this fungicide, for eliminating

powdery mildew from rose plants without

harming the plants.

(B) When the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it

does not present any risk of harm to people,

animals, or beneficial insects.

(C) Powdery mildew is the only fungal infection

that affects rose plants.

(D) If a fungicide is to be effective against powdery

mildew on rose plants, it must eliminate the

powdery mildew completely.

(E) The effectiveness of the fungicide does not

depend on its being more concentrated than

one part in ten parts of water

I picked A but the ans is E- WHY??

Is it true that the right answer choice needs to address both the premise and conclusion. I was told this by my previous instructor and ive been really struggling with these NA questions. im trying to negate but still doesnt work. Im always down to 2 ans choices and pick the wrong one.

yhe right answer is E and i picked B. I dont get at all why E is right because isnt that going against our whole conclusion which is that what the Marine Biologists are saying (lobsters eat one another is in response to hunger when they are together) is Wrong?

E is then saying that any food that they got wasnt enough to kill their hunger ( and therefore the ate eachother)

What am i missing?????

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

What im struggling with is picking the answer- when i pick my answer im like 100% its correct and then i find out im wrong. Im picking the ans with with the most relevance and still getting it wrong! WHAT DO I DO?

eg: Pt3 sec 2

PT3 Sec 4

Like i just dont understand why these are the ans, when the ans i have picked are relevant to the passage

So I keep making the same number of mistakes. I've been on AP for the last two days and for some reason theres something Im clearly doing thats hindering my part and my ability to fix my mistake. Any idea? PLEASE HELP

For eg : PT 78 Sec 3 Q04--> I picked B even though I did consider C

What am I doing wrong?