#Feedback: It would be useful if explanation videos showed JY or the tutor solving the question in real time and thinking out loud and then go into a more in depth analysis. If someone got the question right, it may not be useful to spend 20 minutes watching this video, but if they struggled with timing, they may want to see an actual attempt under time constraints.

I ended up getting this one right in the BR (originally chose B) because I was able to read more carefully and realized that the final sentence subtly says “to progress in physics,” so the author is assuming the scientific fraud hinders progress, which is what AC A says.

I originally picked D but was down to B, D, and E, as I’m sure many people were. Looking back at it, AC B does not attack the analogy, and it just says that the privatization has been problematic for the telecommunications industry. B also does not attack the fact that it has benefited consumers, which allows the author to make the argument that it can benefit park visitors. The author never says that there won’t be any downsides. I’ve also found it crucial to stay focused on the heart and core of the author’s argument, and B gets away from that. D — on the other hand — does not necessarily weaken it. At the end of the day, we cannot guarantee that park visitors will not benefit from AC D. The 7Sage analysis also brings up a good point about the fact that, naturally, more people are invested in telecommunications, and there will be fewer people benefiting from the privatization of parks. Finally, E is just a great way of weakening it because it directly attacks the author’s reasoning. If making national parks private produces less competition, we can no longer reasonably draw the analogy with the telecommunications industry as we now have a substantial difference not previously accounted for.

 I did not like AC E as a valid explanation for the surprising survey results because I thought it only contributed to supporting one survey and did not provide a good explanation for the results in 1984.

For me, the key to this question was drawing the inference that the people who did not judge his performance to be excellent or good were the ones that believe he was guilty. Hence, I went into "hunt mode" and picked A. In the real world, many supporters of politicians can be very loyal. The supporters of a politician refuse to believe such violations, and the opposition will always find a reason to dislike him, whether it's an ethics violation or something else.

Once I had it diagrammed, it was so easy to eliminate A B and D because we cannot go backwards and we have no idea what happens if downtown traffic congestion decreases. E was also a quick elimination as it again confuses sufficiency and necessity.

I did it slightly differently from the video. I didn't write the original conditional and just wrote /Antibiotic eliminate --> greater resistance and then wrote market --> /antibiotic eliminate, hence I get AC B (if market, then greater resistance). Did anyone else do it this way?

@Mowers37 I only tend to watch the video and look into the question if I was not 100% sure with what I answered. If you answered with 100% certainty, watching the video and explanation may cause someone to start overthinking or get confused about something they originally weren't. I'd put that time towards continuing with the curriculum.