@nantesorkestar said:
I just can't see any assumptions the argument is making. In my opinion, C might weaken the argument if the insertion occurs at a random spot. Doesn't this contradict that the fragments are in the same location?
This is an excellent list that I will be bookmarking. Thank you. PT 29 Section4 Question 24 is illustrative. A very complex weakening question containing causation.
... day parlance: check out PT 39-4-19 for an example of ... example of this: check out PT 27 section4 Question 20. Here we ... have a cross-section of several lesson ...
... took an intensive over about 4-5 days for necessary assumption ... a necessary assumption. Consider: PT 39-Section4 Question 19. While I started ... example of this is 37-4-19. These two (among others ...
... look a particularly daunting example: PT 27 Section4 Question 14. What I ... on, please now try 27-4-14, with the above example ... />
Now lets turn to 27-4-14.
The gym fee ...
I've been really looking into sufficient/necessary flaws lately. A particularly difficult way in which the test writers described the flaw appears on PT A section4 question 20.
... right. The older tests (PT 1-PT 20) are really good for ... the sufficient/necessary flaw on PT A section4 question 20 mean? Suggestion ... from the remaining.
... br />
Getting ready to start PT after finishing up most of ... Has anyone ripped out section 1 from PT 36 and used ... as the section 5 in say.. PT 42? Section 2 from ... 36 in PT 43, ... around here (seriously staples, $4 per exam?) so I ...
I am having trouble clear printout of pT 49 , it does not seem to print sections 2, 3 and 4 clearly. Section4 is particularly bad. I know it is not my printer since I am able to print the other PTs (60s) just fine. I am going to try 50 now.