I am having a hard time whether I should follow the schedule. I assume (uh oh) that to be able to strengthen or weaken an answer, you must first be able to see a flaw with the argument. That is why I see it makes more sense to work on the flaw before strengthen/weaken. However, I am sure there is a reason why the syllabus is set up as is but I can't figure out why.
usually rc is my strongest but i got every single question on this passage wrong. jesus
Is this a reasonable similar argument?
Not all cars are fantastic but some are and make great sounds. A great car sound depends on many things; however, these things are subjective. Thus, there is no objective way of determining a great car.
what the hell!?! I thought psychologists were a subset of doctors!!!
i always thought regardless of intent, if you don't tell the truth, you are lying. i guess that's over analyzing
i am a little thrown off by the absurd part? it's absurd because the contrapositive doesn't make sense? It is absurd that all X → Y because /Y→/X. Is this even an argument?
I avoided A because I thought deceptive was too strong of a word to characterize the guy's research, as if he were trying to purposefully mislead
how does line 16 "anticipated not just subsequent development in the arts" = anticipate later artists for question 6? isn't that an assumption we are not allowed to make?? i guess when compared to other answers it's clearly better but it's still one of those "iffy" answers to me.
question 11 was a real trip. 1) so its potentially compatible to incorporate and favor Western notions of standard language writing depending on the community's needs but it's a big no-no to incorporate some words from the majority culture (I assume Western culture) in the case of making a traditional language easier to teach.
2) I understand that some aspects of the majority culture have served as barriers but if majority words can help to actually dismantle such barriers by allowing it easier to teach then how is it so incompatible?
It was really to difficult for me to distinguish endosymbiosis as either a necessary or sufficient condition for plant formation. The way I saw it, If you take the contrapositive of the last statement, you get
single →remains of an engulfed organism (endosymbiosis)
but E says remains (endosymbiosis) → chlorachniophytes.
thanks guys.
are we assuming then the dioxin is released into the water only once a day? i mean what difference does how far dioxin travels downstream make if the factory continually pumps out dioxin in which then the fish are constantly exposed to dioxin?
I chose C but realize C is more of a part-to-part instead of whole to part. If C said Lawson Automobile Company is the best automobile company instead of it makes the best race cars, it would have been correct.