I literally do not understand.

In blind review, I did speculate on AC E because a driver education program could equate skillful drivers. But even then, "skillful drivers" is ambiguous and the argument makes no claim that this was learned/ acquired or if it just came to be suddenly, or what these skills entail for the drivers. So I feel like a drivers education program could stand on its own to compete with the arbitrary influx of skillful drivers. (I mean, drivers education programs make you more well educated, potentially safer, but more skillful? Idk it feels like a stretch).

Okay whatever, that aside, how is AC D (the one I picked) even remotely feasible as weakening. You have to make so many assumptions. Suddenly, these fatalities were occurring in higher amounts because of insufficient hospital space? In order for an increase of hospital facilities to cause a decrease in accident fatalities, you would have to be assuming that people are dying in the hospital waiting room after a car accident because the hospital is full. That is insane. There is no implication in the argument that the fatalities were medically preventable and due to lack of resources happened in greater rates. How could we possibly make the connection that more hospitals = less traffic fatalities without making a completely insane and unreasonable assumption that this all actually has nothing to do with driving but rather that the Australian hospitals don't triage their emergency room?

#help

I was incredibly thrown by this because I viewed it as a weakening question. My takeaway was that:

Hard surface is better than soft surface for speed

The hard surface's superior speed comes from its whole thing with foot contact that is specific to hard surfaces

This foot contact thing can only occur under dry conditions

A: Tracks that are outside cannot be guaranteed to be dry, so this benefit no longer matters

Even if most tracks are inside, the definitive nature of saying hard > soft no longer would apply because the premise that supports that can't hold up in situations in which these conditions are present

Okay I can see the breakdown that created the conditional LST→VC and understand why the contrapositive makes sense (If there is no change in values, then labor saving tech was not introduced). Where I am confused is how C is the contrapositive. Because if the contrapositive is saying, where there isn't a change in values, there hasn't been labor saving tech, how is that the same as C? Because my understanding of C is that it says "not susceptible to change" which means the values have the ability to not change. This seems like its describing societies where values cannot be altered, which is a society outside of the scope, because in the passage we only read about any society with values that can experience change based on introduction to labor saving technologies. So it feels like C describes a type of society that has uninfluencable values, which was not described? I understand there are societies where the values don't change because there hasn't been a catalyst, but where does it discuss societies that are exempt from experiencing change?

#HELP

I originally chose B then changed my answer to E in the blind review. I realized where I misread. I did not internalize that 92% was the purest known and therefore there was not other instances of unrefined gold that was greater than 92%. So when I read, "the mints could refine gold and produced other kinds of coins that had much purer content" I applied the verbs refine and produced to coins of purer content and thought it was saying that when they mined gold of >92% gold content they refined it (for whatever reason). I now realize the entire passage meant to say that the Senegalese gold which had 92% was the highest percentage mined unrefined and able to be minted, therefore any other gold mined would be 92%). What made me cross off B with that backwards logic was because they don't explicitly say gold content of less than 92% so I thought that we did not have information on that subset, when it is actually implied as I described earlier.

I had a really had time with the word "testing" and did not know what that meant they were doing with gamma interferon, even when spending more time in the blind review. My take away from reviewing this though is that in these LEAST supporting questions, I have to look at the wrong answers differently. When reading the other options, I was thinking that it required a lot of jumps and interferences from the stimulus and therefore they were less supported, but how I should look at it is that the stimulus in no way outright disproves it, which is what I could see happens with A in the video explanation.

I originally chose C because I felt that the line "their opinions changed little" was an indicator that people in Denmark did not give this topic much thought and didn't feel inclined to learn more in an opinion-altering way. So I felt that this showed a lack of concern. In the blind review I took time to visualize the percentages and realized that because D was definitively true, that C must be wrong. When looking closer at C I took issue with the "not seriously concerned" because I felt that this was odd phrasing and in the questions I've worked on thus far if they used oddly subjective phrases its usually wrong.

Lmao for the exact reason I didn't pick AC B in BR, he says is the reason that AC E is wrong. I didn't choose AC B again because it says "minor influence." How can we infer that minor influence is the opposite of far-reaching? He tells us we make that inference and then in AC E says to make the assumption that major influence=far-reaching influence is wrong. How..

I didn't choose AC B because why would minor influence be the negation of "far-reaching." Can't an influence be minor (only affect a few people) and be far-reaching (go far outside of your community to impact those few)?

I understand that AC E went too far and said "it has broad popular appeal as well" but in past video explanations I feel like JY has said it doesn't matter if there are these additional details. The sufficient still confirms the two necessaries, why does it make it wrong that there is an additional descriptor of his truly great music. It doesn't say in the stimulus that additional consequences not described means it is invalid. Bruh

#help

I'm having difficulty with understanding the map created from the stimulus. So it says "if there is no other evidence than the fact that SB are present in the persons throat." So this statement is saying this is not a sufficient condition. It then says "infection does not occur unless the host is physically run down." Which means that run does → Infection.

It doesn't state that Run down + Bacteria → Infection.

Why can we conclude that both of these paired together create the infection? Is it outside knowledge that bacteria is what creates infection?

#help

In AC E I felt that he reinterpreted a key phrase by reinterpreting "minimize patient's suffering." In the hospital auditor's argument he says "instead of letting it flow directly to its patients." Implying that to follow the terms of the donation, the money must flow directly to the patients, implying that that direct flow is minimizing patient's suffering, or the only course of action that leads to that.

The clinic administrator reinterprets "minimize patient's suffering as NOT a direct flow, but any flow, in this instance with an additional step in-between (research leading to develops that can aid in specific treatment), that ends with the result of decreased patient suffering.

I am not sure how the argument is "excluding" alternative explanations. I crossed AC B off because of the word exclude. I see everyone continue to give a weird definition to exclude in the comments saying exclude = dismiss. Exclude means leave out, like leaving unaddressed. The author mentions them directly, how is that excluding?

#help

Is there any negatives to requesting an ADHD accommodation? I think I also struggle with ego and don't know if it slaps a negative label on me that admissions will look down on.

Me as well.