The answer to Argument "to reduce traffic congestion in the city center, we must implement a new policy that bans...". It cannot be A. because the argument is saying nothing of the ability to handle the demand, the argument is about reducing congestion. IF private cars reduced THEN congestion reduced. If the result is people walking to the office or staying home that is still correct (congestion is reduced), so the ability of public transport to handle the demand is irrelevant. The correct answer is B. you are assuming that IF we reduce private cars THEN the congestion will be reduced. But that only works if private cars are the main cause.

Very weel explained. Thank you!@

Thanks for the help.

Thank you for making this video! 🙏🏾

OMGGG, i was just looking for your vid on deductive, i seen numerical, inductive which came few months ago.  Perfect timing it gets posted today.

100% agree with those saying you talk too fast. Your content is great & much appreciated but it could be improved by slowing down your speech & showing some working on the video rather than simply talking about it.

For priority client I think the answers is  C
Priority 3 corresponds with the revenue

Thank you for sharing

I feel ready for my online deductive assessment test. Thank you.

Also
B is the answer
Because the page assumes that private cars are the cause of the traffic hence the reason for the ban

Thanks for all you do, you’ve helped me a lot 🤝

Answer is B

Because Airplane D has more seats than A, A has fewest number of first class seats, meaning all other planes has more first class seats than A
And that is a fact, Clears all other options

If Airplane A has the fewest number of first class seats doesn’t that also make option B: Airplane D has more first class seats than Airplane A correct?

Perfect timing, thanks for the video

To find the correct underlying assumption for an argument, you can use the “negation test”.
If you negate (flip) the assumption and the argument falls apart, it’s likely the underlying assumption.
For the argument at 08:40, option A was:
“Public transportation options are sufficient to handle the increased demand.”

Negate it:
➡ “Public transportation options are NOT sufficient to handle the increased demand.”
Now the conclusion “we MUST implement a new policy that bans private cars” becomes much weaker / doesn’t make sense.
So A is a strong candidate for the underlying assumption. => option A is the answer

Thank you for making this video. It was really helpful.

13:12
Our new software development process...
Answer: A
SHL takeaway:
When an argument claims a process change will improve morale or productivity, the assumption almost always concerns how people feel about or respond to that change, not technical or organizational side details.

Option B seems correct for reducing traffic because only private vehicles are banned . Where did increased demand and transportation sufficiency came from?

3:42 , does A also correct?, since it has 5 seats?

13:30 please if they asked the total of the previous 3 months, why are we using total of expected income?
Can you explain?

Why not developer prefer working in smaller tasks?