This might be a stupud question but when someone 'files' a report does it mean he/she did or did not report it in the newspaper

Could you check if my reasoning is correct? Principle : if NO hard evidence that fulfilling duty will have disastrous consequences --> should fulfill A) will there be disastrous consequences if teacher raises grade? NO therefore should fulfill D) will there be disastrous consequences if psych doe...

Was I wrong to assume the answer had to weaken the volcano thoery while at the same time had to somewhat support the asteroid thoery?

The answer makes sense now if I had to ONLY weaken the volcano theory

I chose B for the reasons outlined above BUT....

isnt B a bias towards the submission and not the exhibition of art work??

Isnt E nec but not suf because not all ppl with DD are profs?

Isnt quincy offering a new explanation by saying its nothing more than a coincidence??

Or is it not since she only says its "skeptical"?

Does "D" confuse necessary with sufficient??

Since the argument relies on the authors definition of coercion, wouldn't it weaken the conclusion considerably if the authors definition of coercion were unfair or different than the definition the author specified (although fairness is subjective). Good question! Here's how you can tell that answ...

Hi

When miguel says "little effect on highway safety" isnt he implying that there is at least SOME effect (ie. that there would not be NO effect)?

Is A correct because "substantial" is too strong thus a disagreement from miguel??

Would B be correct if the statements before and after "do not imply" were reversed??

Also, how does determinism being false = imply that there is no complete state of the universe at that time??

The explanation for c being wrong seems a bit too simple

I chose c because i assumed since purebreds live a shorter life their medical bills would be lower than nonpurebreds.. whats wrong with my reasoning?

Quick question... is this a false dilemma flaw?

Wouldnt the existence of placement offices give potential dropouts a reason to stay and graduate since if they do theyll get help getting jobs? Therefore reducing the number of ppl who dropout? I chose A cuz it seemed like a clearer alternative to the morale boosting program but i am not satisfied w...

I saw this as being a stronger answer than A, which as you pointed out doesn't actually show a flaw in the author's argument. I wrote that a long time ago, so it's hard to jump back into my old thought process, but I don't think that's what I meant. I think I was trying to point out that some "...

Could someone explain to me what the stem is asking for??

Can i treat almost certainly as certainly??
Its confusing becuz ALMOST seems to make any assumption non necessary

I chose d cuz a and e seemed to imply stronger assumptions than what was needed for something that is ALMOST certain

For E to be correct dont we have to assume the year is post 1980??
I wanted to choose E but i couldnt confidently pick it cuz we werent told what year it is currently in the argument...

Isnt the fact that its being built more expensively than need be is a waste of tax money??

Edit.. oops i was sure the argument said at a lower cost when i first read it LOL

Here's my reasoning for E: Argument states that although K's population increased their revenue went down, which means K's population increase was less than the COMBINED increase of M and G Let's start with 2010 (last/base year) 2010 - Total population 100 K - 40 (40% of total) M - 40 (40% of total)...

Can we assume 'create economic justice' = 'alleviate economic injustice'?
i elim'd E becuz i thought those two statements couldnt be assumed to be the same