I can not visualize and diagram out a stimulus like this that has so many moving parts to it like J.Y. can when he does so for the purposes of the explanation, does anyone have tips for breaking everything down in sims like this that just explain a bunch of things?

how on earth do I not fall for a trap answer like D..............the support says it has to reveal important info about a medical condition, so the AC saying that it does not constitute a medical condition wouldn't be applicable to the (should be prohibited) rule!!?

Good versus Best always gets me, here in this question it is okay to conclude that not best=not good???

doesn't "other sources" mean stuff that is NOT tv and newspaper??

I found it problematic that the Premises were about a study of rats, when the Conclusion is about a human, so now we have to assume that we can correlate the two?

We are 'not supposed to' bring in outside knowledge but you would have to bring that in and assume rats and humans are comparable in these studies...

I fell for E because the coping ability being a requirement made me think that it caused the extinction because without the cause there wouldn't be the effect, but I guess its true that a requirement does not mean a cause.....anyone else fell for this?

mikes version of the explanation was the best video explanation I have ever seen

i thought B's unavoidable thing would be increased taxes

so in a stim if it goes from X only if Y... then the conclusion says Y so we should X does this mean its gonna be a suff nec flip?

interested! scoring in 150s after studying for months and months and taking it officially twice.

I get that the good life part isn't a part of the conclusion, but don't we still have to include it in diagramming like GL-> SI?

Do I have to read Jennifer’s part in the stimulus if the question stem is only about Peter’s argument?

im confused on why this is not a parallel flaw question... corral->causation is a flaw?

for E it just says irrigation, it doesn't specify seawater or freshwater irrigation, did I miss something?

I figured that B if true, would show that since halophytes need salt, and they would give them salt, there will be greater crop yield since they are getting what they need, which ultimately means seawater agriculture would in fact be cost-effective, so it strengthens the argument. What is the issue with this thought process?

Does anyone have a tip for identifying subsidiary conclusion versus overall conclusion?

I am interested!

How would we know where we can't use splitting the conclusion and premise descriptors method?... would it just be where u do not spot a P or C in the ACs?

If there is a PAI question that is also MSS, do we look for the answer choice that supports it the most, even if not explicitly said in one side of the argument?

And on the other hand for PAI questions that do not ask to infer or MSS, we can find the answer by seeing what is explicitly said between the two arguments?

for answer choice E, how can we assume that single work station and same work station both mean the same thing, I was going to choose E because it said same, but in the stimulus the rule was single work station ( I thought meaning their individual station)

That makes a lot of sense, thank you !

Answer choice B, is exactly what is written in the stimulus -in the second sentence. Why would that still not be the answer?