I did not treat this as a conditional. It was supposed to be: if x, then x.

i think i just cracked the code to strengthen. you just find the conclusion and then strengthen the road to conclusion. its like making a bridge wider.

god damn it

write the conclusion after it! ask: does it support it? plug it in. for role, plug ts in

more precise answers need more precise support

I located the gap between ethical ACTION and ethical STANDARD in the stimulus. but the answer choice's wording is so weird i didn't realize it.

Meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of refraining from unethical behavior.

= the criteria of meeting STANDARD is to not do UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

which means performing ETHICAL ACTION does NOT mean NO UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

initial reaction is to avoid ALL; to ignore or be chill with those who do not eat them is a LEARNED behavior. Chose E initially because I thought E was emphasizing the LEARNED part. Then I realized that E is not general enough to apply to the hypothesis, which says "seals", referring to all young harbor seals.

Key word is interpretation!

“Only” introduces necessary condition. “The only” introduces sufficient condition.

For the hard weaken flaw except questions, the one you feel like is the most relevant is often times not the most relevant.

treat strengthen like SA. because P and [AC] therefore C.

I absolutely need to remember to PREPHRASE the argument in my head and remember to negation test NA questions to avoid stupid mistakes like this. If you feed a 1-year old kid salty food for a year they'll like salty food more than sweet food. Author concludes that it's because of what flavor you exposed the kid to. Causal NA is just like strengthen - any other alternatives? Rule them out. Thus A is absolutely the best answer.

A is too strong.

Chose A because I thought it was the best answer out of all the bad answers. Eliminated B too soon because it is super strong but forgot you should actually like strong answers for SA. A is also pretty wrong because why does it only touch on the "reduce biological diversity of ecosystems"...it's very weak and does not add much to the conclusion.

if not saved, then spent; spent = if not purchase, then debt

P: MP -> /Pt by o

C: Mp -> /know true

Basically

P: A-> B

C: A-> C

In SA, this means B->C

Look for answers that says B->C, which is

/Pt by o -> /know true

Which is also know true -> pt by o

which is answer choice E.

SA/PSA = P + [AC] = C

for NA, choose the more basic weak answer!! always!

1. Find P & C

2. Find MA

3. Find what must be true for MA to be true

4. Revisit C to limit scope & relevance of answer

past v. future; prediction

"some dogs are descended from wolves THAT WERE DOMESTICATED MUCH MORE RECENTLY THAN OTHERS". focal point is wolf. I did not prephrase this conclusion accurately.

1. similar topics = red flag. almost always wrong

2. "must" should match "must".

cuz they caught the most experienced thieves duh

I was left between A and D, and sadly ended up choosing D. Upon reflection, I just confused weaken and strengthen. My biggest weakness when it comes to weakening and strengthening is that I forget the argument I'm trying to weaken when I'm going down the ACs. Perhaps drawing down notes would help.

E actually goes against the author. The author does not assume that the reduction of workers is irrelevant...the author thinks it IS relevant. I was very tempted by B, but I crossed it out too fast because of the "production rate" tripped me out.