Hey! I am looking for a study buddy or study group to stay on track and hold each other accountable.
- Joined
- May 2025
- Subscription
- Free
So, like a concession, the author is conceding somewhat conceding to a counterargument that can be made.
The first one confused me a bit because it looks like the context needs contexts. It starts off with 'if these new policies" and I asked myself when I was done reading what new policies?
I got it right in formation, but I had a bit of a brain itch on the second argument. As it says, "tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." Now it's saying tigers "can" cause serious injuries, as in there is still room for an assumption, as you're almost saying they can, but will they? And to me, that's true because it has a level of uncertainty, but it says tigers "are" very aggressive, and so now their being aggressive is definitive. How do we know that for certain? As there are times when they are, in fact, not aggressive.
I am also down