A: bill that doesnt violate rights + benefit most ppl -> pass into law w in a few years

C: those who oppose law are not influential + favoured by most ppl-> law within a few years

E: doesn't violate rights +most ppl favour -> pass into law promptly

all are in the domain of a well functioning democracy, meaning if the conditional fails, it's not a well functioning democracy

the only diff between a and e is the wording of benefit vs favour, and favour is the right one bc that's what the argument's conc said

for #6, i thought the word "prompt" was too weak :(((((

also b attacks the conc over the relationship bt premise and conc

yes because no other answer comes even close to paralleling the flaw. maybe if you were down to two really similar answers, you'd pick the one that matches the stim's level of probability, but here idt that's a big issue

that's not what the answer is saying tho. it's saying that neither of the two people can fix BOTH doors and windows independently, meaning that maybe person a can fix doors but not windows and person b can fix windows but not doors. it's not implying that they'll be able to work together and hold hands to fix the windows and doors together, it's just implying that independently, neither of them has the skill set to do so. it's similar to the stim bc similar to how no one disease can wipe out everything, neither of these people alone can fix both things, when working together (all the diseases, both the people), it's likely that the diseases could make all those animals extinct, just as it's possible that the "some things" person a can fix will cover the "some things" person b cannot fix, leading to the chance that if they work together, they can cover the full range of things that need to be fixed.

"the odds are overwhelming" = likely

i think u mean D! the video states that D does nothing to the argument. the argument claims that life could have came from land or over 1/2 billion yrs ago bc of these rocks that had C14 which can come from living things, but that's not the only possible explanation for c14, like what if the c14 in the rocks just came DIRECTLY (key word) from the atmosphere? so because D validates that alt explanation for the c14 (that it came from the atmosphere and NOT living things), it's the right answer because that does not strengthen, and rather weakens.

however my logic was a bit diff bc i didn't realize the word directly didn't mean not from life lol i just thought it could have gone like life -> atmosphere -> rocks. so i just elimated d bc the premises already stated that these old rocks had c14... so why would an answer that states that again strengthen the argument regardless of the quantitative value?

E is not the right answer bc the argument operates under the assumption that the old rocks were dated correctly, and e makes that assumption into fact, thus strengthening

omg CONGRATS !! but how long were u stuck in the high 160's ??? i've been stuck for SOOO long