@Kevin_Lin

In the second pg where you put in your low res "Auth. - Effectiveness supported", why can you assume that the statements given is the author's belief? The sentences are talking about how studies are showing "stealing thunder" as effective, as well as the corroboration from psychological findings. Does that mean we can assume when the author puts in information about studies supporting something, or suggesting the truth of something, that the author then believes this fact?

@GnatTaylor Something that really helped is that JY said assumptions are always implicit, meaning they aren't directly stated. Since this sentence is explicitly stated, not implicitly, it could never be an assumption.

JY's explanation is so awful for this question that it is making me extremely confused, and I got the question correct...

For answer choice D, even if there are additional explanations, it doesn't make the increased tuition explanation false. Maybe there are two explanations, and one of them is still the tuition. So raising tuition would still help with the pool size, regardless of the other existing possible explanations. This is why it is wrong to me.

@Temporubato I believe so! The two conditions to not domesticating is too difficult or not worth it. So these need to be fulfilled in the present to keep the argument alive.

I just didn't know what disseminate meant...

@cmcmanus2479 I feel as A does support because if other locations are validating the claim, then it removes the counterargument that this is a one off study whose results have not been able to be replicated elsewhere

@jennawiese The only way that makes sense to me is that the most chain has to start first, hence "most before all". So "abilty -m-> enjoy flying" can only be linked with something that starts with enjoy flying, which the other condition "pilot -> abilty" does not.

In translation, "most before all" is valid, but "all before most" does not have to be valid.

This is what I took from that example, but anyone correct me if I am wrong please!

@JeffreyRamirez You need to answer the question "if I have X, then Y 100% must be had/hapenned". Since "all microscopic organisms must be capable of feeling pain", if you stumble upon a microscopic organism, then you can conclude it 100% must be capable of feeling pain (because they all have this capability).

(Have) microscopic organism (then) --> (it 100% is) capable of feeling pain.

@Jbshallenberger "The only.." indicates sufficient. This is different than "Only...", which does indicate necessary.

Conclusion is the belief, while premise is the evidence for that belief