I'm trying to identify flaws. is PT 56 S3 Q10 an equivocation flaw; can you use more than a word but a concept in this type of flaw?
Is PT 52 S3 Q4 a false appeal flaw?
Is PT 54 S4 Q16 an implication flaw ?
thanks
I second @"Nilesh S"
I'm pretty sure it would be against rules to post actual screenshots of the stimulus. But if you use referencing such as "PT 35 S1 Q15" and then post your question about it, then it should be alright.
I'm talking about the Misc Category from 7Sage for example PT 40 S1 Q10, Q15. I see now that I can just figure out the type myself. Like Q10 is something like an Identify the Disagreement type.
We want an answer that contradicts the stimulus, not one that is irrelevant. The stimulus essentially states that if you’re restricting, then you preventing negative effects. TO contradict that,we negate it: Restricting AND not preventing negative effects. ...
Interesting. You're positive the NA isn't actually necessary? I'm curious about these examples. I didn't look closely at it, but PT 71.S1.Q11 seems to be about pollution. Is that the right reference? PT means PrepTest, right?
The stimulus doesn't allow us to conclude this. Grass clippings are one way to get micro-nutrients, but the stimulus doesn't say it's the ONLY way. Thus, when the ...