How can I join? Whatsapp or IG works for me

Hypothetical question: if D said "there are other factors besides the threat of competition that keeps companies from raising prices" could it be a correct AC if this was a weakening question? I'm just trying to understand why I initially chose this AC #help

#help

For 26, I did not pick C because I assumed the author of the passage only presents someone else's (the biologist) modification to the prevailing view and then discusses the implications of the modifications made by the biologists. I don't know if that makes sense

Is C also incorrect because its premises are what has been said rather than evidence or something that has been established like in the stim? #help

Hi! I would love to be added :)

I do not think the ACs you cited are the same as AC C in this problem. First, AC C states "uses a parallel case," which means uses a specific example or incident (the chicken) that illustrates a weakness in O's argument (which is the assumption that the ability to perch means an animal is tree-dwelling). I think the keywords here are case because it indicates a specific instance or event and illustrates a weakness because this shows that the P's argument attacks by exemplifying the gaps O's argument. And how does it exemplify? With a parallel case.

Using a specific instance (a parallel case) to illustrate something about the argument weakens by providing a somehow contradicting example. Contrastingly, an alternate explanation weakens by attacking the causational logic used. So in this case, an alternative explanation might provide a reason different than the curvature of their claws to explain why Arch... are "probably tree-dwelling creatures." But the Palaeontologist doesn't do so, they instead show a case that illustrates a gap in the O's argument.

And for the example AC you provided - “questioning a claim about why something is the case by supplying an alternative explanation” - is just a specified way of providing an alternative explanation. As introducing an alternative explanation can attack an argument in more than one way.

The other AC you quoted, "cites facts that tend to weaken the force of the evidence with which the author supports her/his conclusion/hypothesis” is different from providing an alternative explanation and AC C. It means the argument uses facts that weaken/attack the premise. So this is a weird case where the argument is not focused on the support the premise gives the conclusion, but instead on the premise(s) themselves.

I hope this helps!!

I was tripped up by the phrase "barely meets the previous estimates" in the second clause of the second sentence. I was unsure if that meant the current estimates were just barely above or just barely below the previous.

I'm guessing the fact that the first clause of the sentence presents the previous estimates as small is meant to indicate the current estimates are even smaller. But I'm still wondering if anyone else was a bit confused by that phrase or has any tips on not spending too much time unpacking things like this.