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.
The answer would be 2018, he was elected last is 2012, and senators sentences are each 6 years, so 2012+6 is 2018! The answer is 2018!
Hope this helps!~Karma
Answer:
yes his consumption could change
Explanation:
His consumption of pizza could change since he might need to consume less pizza to afford more tacos. We could use the marginal rate of substitution to explain this where we describe how much goods one is willing to give up for the other while retaining maximum utility/satisfaction. So Jonny may be asked here what combination of tacos and pizza would give him same satisfaction while keeping good budget and retaining satisfaction.
