Subscription pricing
I got a question for high scorers; when you see an argument like PT 22 - Section 4 - Question 21 that have sufficiency necessity confusion but you decide to not map it out, do you have a absolute certainty that it is sufficiency necessity confusion or you just have a feeling for it? I am asking because when I read the question I thought it probably is sufficiency necessity confusion but I was not 100% sure until I mapped it out during BR.
0
9 comments
I am in the same boat as you!
I gotta go back to solidify my conditional logic understanding and mapping skills. Thanks for answering my question.
I know this is a tad off topic, but I think this is the biggest difference between 172+ and high test takers, having a clear and confident prephrase/predictive answer vs a vague one. I just watched a video again of a high taker talking about their tips (its the one where they do a LR in 19 min) and in the recap video, he talks about how he never ever, ever, ever, goes into the answer choices without having a clear understanding of the stimulus and gaps.
After watching these and joining lectures, webinars it really seems having the confidence and total understanding that allows the top test takers to move quickly and accurately. Its one of the big things I have realized I can waiver a bit on and then my confidence takes a beating which can impact a section. The sections where I am confident and I see clearly are great, the sections where I feel more vague in my prephrase or understanding of the stimulus typically are my score dips.
It seems like just one more thing we have to master, but I think really can be a plateau buster.
This is a super weird question! It took me a moment to orient myself, but yeah, I caught it without diagramming.
So if you have a conditional in the stimulus and you know that the question is a flaw question know even before you read the conclusion: In what direction can this thing go that would make it a sufficient/necessary flaw? And if it takes that turn in the conclusion, then go hunting for the answer that best describes that.
I think we would do well to remember how a sufficient/necessary flaw presents itself. This can lend itself to recognizing the flaw in action.
If I say that if it rains then the game is cancelled a sufficient/necessary flaw for this would be if it doesn't rain then the game won't be cancelled.
Original terms: R---->C
Flaw: -R---->-C
I could also commit the same flaw by erroneously saying that if the game is cancelled then it rained.
Flaw:C---->R
Knowing how these instances of a sufficient/necessary flaw manifest themselves is key with these questions. There are only a certain amount of ways this flaw can happen.
Yes and no. It really depends on the question. On certain ones, yes. (usually easier and less convoluted ones) The one you are talking about has the potential to be very confusing because its convolution. So I don't think I'd be as certain as if I mapped it out during BR, but I usually am once I check my pre-phrase against the other answer choices.
I will say that the more questions like this I see, the more certain I am of my answer.
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 thanks for the comment, I pre-phrase too but I am not sure about my pre-phrase before looking at answer choices, I just have a vague idea that it has the potential for sufficiency necessity confusion. Some of these questions are really convoluted (like the one I mentioned); do you have the same level of certainty as when mapping it out before looking at answer choices?
@40450.parham Questions like this are ones that I pre-phrase before even looking at the answer choices. When I see it in the answer choices after, then I have close to absolute certainty.