Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
Explanation:
There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:
- The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
- There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
- There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.
The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.
Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.
Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.
Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.
Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.
A solar eclipse occurs when the moon intersect with the Earth and the Sun causing a shadow over Earth. hope this helps.
Nonfiction doesnt depend on a plot.
Hope this helps!
Happy studying!
<span>It is crucial to understand psychology in today's world because the population is expanding exponentially. We have to know about behavior to know how to deal with one another when we're living so close together. Chances are, with this many people,some of them are going to have behavior problems. Not to mention it is a survival skill. understanding behavior allows us to sense danger.</span>
