The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about th...
Elizabeth25May 4, 2024
why not e
so for me the conclusion started at thus which introduced a new term (the contracted being violated) from what i recalled we are suppose to connect things in the stimulus to the conclusion which to me is what e does.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I think you need to be way more specific about what the flaw is. Here the author has assumed that no lawyer was told. But the only premise we have to support this is that y was not told. The fact that y was not told certainly doesn't prove that no lawyer was told!
E doesn't even come close to fixing this. It tells us that in the event no lawyer was told then it was violated, but this never tells us that no lawyer was told.
Elizabeth25May 17, 2024
Oh ok Emil, thank you for your pick up on my vagueness in finding the flaw sometimes. I appreciate it and will definitely be more critical of the argument. But I now see how A needed to be a part of the stimulus to be correct
Emil-KunkinMay 17, 2024
Great! I know you also asked a question recently about a substitution question, but for some reason I'm not able to see which PT it was about. Do you happen to remember which test it was from?
Elizabeth25May 18, 2024
so it was on the analytics section of group games questions 498-504. The game was seatings for a benefit dinner 7 sponsors.
