Can I understand (E) like the following? Even though having a hope is not evidence, I see (E)'s problem mainly lies in the fact that Zachary is not the one that performs the psychotherapy. IF (E) is worded like: "Zachary hoped that persuading his parents to call a pyschotherapist will help them...

Can anyone help on (A)? I think (A)'s problem is due to "many" and "regular" but not its scope. Obviously, (D) and (E) is out of scope. But we cannot say so for (A). If (A) is out of scope, then it's like to say we cannot weaken a causal link, for example A-->B, by showing tha...

Hi ohthatpatrick, thank you very much for your explanation!!! it really helps!

Hey guys, I notice that a lot of you classify the first sentence as the conclusion, which I agree. If the first sentence is the conclusion, why D is not a better match? D says, the argument tries to establish the validity of the first sentence "by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim...

I don't think E describes the objection. For me, the objection's rationale is: clairvoyance fits the definition of knowledge but it's not a case of knowledge. They try to come up with a counterexample of the current definition of knowledge. I prefer A to E because A describes the essayist's reasonin...

Good catch nflamel69! Can anyone clarify this?

Hi christine.defenbaugh, thank you very much! this explanation helps!