pt 70, s.4, q. 15, Letter to the Editor: you say that if... Forum

[flash21]

I am wondering whether my reasoning for eliminating (A) and (B) is justified.

They both claim that the burglar in question must directly compensate the people they victimized, but in the stimulus it states that it would go to a fund that I am interpreting to be a general fund of victims of burglary everywhere and not necessarily directly to the people who are victimized.

So basically my logic is that since they stimulus never states that the burglar should directly compensate the exact people he stole from, both of these can be eliminated.

Thoughts? Manhattan forums is saying a different reason why, and I'm not quite sure if that is because this reasoning is not good.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[msp8]

I think you're missing out on what the argument core is, and what the question stem is asking you to do.

[flash21]

thanks for the help guys,

I indeed misunderstood the core.

appreciate the help berry / mi