I had a really hard time figuring this one out with logic - but this made the process easier for me to understand:

on first glance, can see that all of the answer choices have well functioning democracy →

so you know that you need to find an answer that fails the necessary. that made it easier for me to ignore all the extra words and just focus on which AC let me fail the necc:

a) /violate human rights --> bill that benefits will be passed into law

can't break the necessary here because the "bill that benefits" is out of scope.

b) opposed by influential + favored by most others --> eventually passed

meeting the necc. here, so can't conclude anything. eliminate

c) favored by most people becomes law in few years --> those who oppose it aren't influential

those who oppose it are --> /becoming law in few years

again -- meeting the necessary, the stim tells us that it isn't passed in a few years. so can't do anything with this

d) passed into law --> favored by most people and consistent with human rights

we are meeting the necc again, so can't conclude anything - eliminate

e) /violate anyone's rights --> will be passed promptly into law

/passed promptly into law --> violates rights

HERE - we can break the necessary. we know that it /violate rights, so that pushes back and we have /violates rights --> /wfd.

I'm in the exact same place!!

this is how I did my logic out and it seemed to work for A:

extraordinary --> [presented critically --> backed up by evidence of ESH]

extraordinary + presented critically --> backed up by evidence of ESH

/backed up by evidence of ESH --> /extraordinary OR /presented critically [should be presented without skepticism]

we know that the claim was extraordinary, so it's not /extraordinary. so it must be /presented critically [presented without skepticism]

which violates the rules here, because that's what the newspaper did and they are saying it was unjustified in doing so.

I think E could be wrong because there is a distinction between making life "less difficult" and making it "easier"

if easier to see the logic this way, I wrote it out as

capable of communication --> intelligent

/intelligent --> /capable of communication

/capable of communication --> [detect existence --> sending SS] but we know we fail the necessary here so:

/capable of communication --> [/sending SS --> /detecting existence]

which gets us to:

/capable of communication --> /detecting existence

linking that back to the top you get:

/intellegent --> capable of communication --> /detect existence

the contrapositive is:

detect existence --> intelligent

I thought I understood this question when I first took the section but realized later that I got lucky picking answer choice E. When reviewing it, I got stuck on why B was wrong. This is how I think of it:

We know:

(1) that they are the safest vehicles according to injuries (fewer injuries)

(2) that they aren't offering any sort of greater protection compared to other vehicles of same size

So why do they have the fewest injuries?

C: not because they are inherently safer, but because there are lower risk drivers driving them

For B:

it's saying that based off of the number of accidents, minivans have just as many accidents as other cars. this actually could weaken or strengthen the answer depending on which assumption you decide to make (which is usually how trap answers go).

if you decide to strengthen it, you could say that they have just as many accidents which shows that the cars aren't any safer comparatively, and therefore it must be the driver.

if you decide to weaken it you could say that they have just as many accidents because the people who are driving it are the ones that are causing the accidents, meaning that the drivers actually maybe aren't low risk.

this leaves it up to way too many assumptions, which makes it a nonactive answer choice. in order for it to strengthen, you'd first have to assume that the car itself is the reason why the accidents are happening, not the people.

For E on the other hand:

this explicitly states that the minivans have worse brakes and handles than other vehicles of the same size. this is explicitly strengthening the premise that they aren't inherently safer based off of specific qualities that they have. there are no extra assumptions you have to make. which is why it's the correct answer.

the trap answers for strengthening and weakening I've been realizing really try and play with your mind to see if you fall into the trap of making one assumption to get what you want out of it. a good rule of thumb I've been trying to use is to see if an answer choice can work as both a strengthener and a weakener, if it can, then it's going to be the trap answer wrong choice.

I got this question right from POE but figuring out the conditional logic and how the words fit into it really helped me:

Think of it like the premise saying:

[Allowing species to perish --> undermine the viability] → [preserve max, /perish]

With answer choice D, the parts fit in like this:

The change will jeopardize something that is important to us

[the change = allowing the species to perish, jeapordize something ] undermine the viability]

→ we shouldn't allow it

[shouldn't allow = /perish]

hi! I really struggled with this question type too, but found someone's advice that I read in a different comment section to be super useful:

Although it might seem straightforward, I think it's helpful to read person B's and remember that there is a specific part of person A's argument that they are disagreeing with, decide what that disagreement is, and then turn to the answer choices. Approaching the questions this way has really helped my performance on this question type. It's always a good idea to stop and think for a second after reading person B's argument and ask yourself "what part of person's A argument are they disagreeing with?" Because you know there has to be a point of disagreement.

For this one, I would read person A, and then read person B, and stop and think: ok, they are disagreeing with person A that there is NO GOVERNMENT that has the right to do this thing. Person B is saying actually, this one type of government does have the right. Person B's argument goes if the government gives people the freedom to leave --> then they have the right to redistribute resources.

As far as the emigration question, I would paraphrase in my mind that B actually says "any government that gives people the freedom to leave [same thing as emigration] --> right to redistribute resources"

You know that person A would say No (since they said NO GOVERNMENT has the right) and person B would say Yes (because this is exactly their argument, that if you permit emigration --> right to redistribute).

Hope this helps!

I don't know if this will help anyone else, but I was stuck on D for the longest time because I kept thinking if max 40K were on these special documents, and those are the rare ones, then it must be that the other ones (the non rare documents) are the ones that have the seals that were recycled and are in the majority (meaning, there are more documents than seals that we found). When I re-read the stimulus, I realized, I should be focusing more on the fact that it's possible that 10K were the special, rare ones, and 30K were the regular ones, but what if the regular ones were NEVER OPENED? The stimulus is basically saying if they are opened --> served purpose --> recycled. I think that's the important thing to focus on here. That really made me understand the question better so hope it helps someone too!