Question 4 is a principle question. So one of the answer choices is supposed to conform to this principle.

So, recall from your core curriculum lessons on what that means.

It's very similar to sufficient assumption questions.

So out of this, the stimulus, we're supposed to get a principle that say A implies B.

And then with this principle, we're supposed to pick an answer choice that looks like this.

Right? That looks like this. Which, I mean, this is a valid argument, right?

An answer choice, now mind you, the blue is what the answer choice is.

So the blue, the answer choice by itself, of course, minus this conditional is not a valid argument.

But with the conditional, it's a valid argument.

Right? So the only other way for you to get a valid argument is to say not B, therefore not A.

Right? So either of this is okay.

So your conclusion can either be the affirmation of your necessary condition,

or it can be the denial of your sufficient condition.

This should all just be like very basic logic lessons, right?

I mean, if it's not, then you got to review your logic lesson.

You have to anticipate, I mean, you know, you're going to get logic questions, right?

Like, as a matter of course, there's only question four.

This one should go really fast.

Well, they do this embedded conditional thing where the if is at the very end,

and also there's another conditional that's subtly reported to us by using this word is.

Right? This thing is this thing.

Right? So this thing is a sufficient condition for this thing.

So those are two. So you sort of, let's take a look at this one first.

A consultant, I mean, read this, right?

You got a consultant as one player, you got a CEO as another player, right?

So the consultant, if the consultant has business interest with CEO's company,

so here you just want to represent consultant has business interest, right?

The consultant has business interest.

That's the if statement, right? So if this, then what?

Well, then this whole thing, right? Then this whole thing. What's this whole thing?

Well, the CEO, their pay is determined by the vice of the consultant, right?

Her pay is determined by the vice of the consultant.

So here, maybe I'll just write consultant A for consultant vice to determine pay was taken, right?

It was used to determine the actual compensation package.

So if that's the case, then, right? This is where this arrow,

this conditional arrow is where I say it's subtly represented by this is, right?

Is likely to be overcompensated, right?

Likely to be overcompensated. So now we have an embedded conditional,

and you know how to pull this embedded conditional into something more easier to read from our logic lessons on conditional mastery.

You just replace this and you push this one outside the parentheses and you're all set.

So if the consultants, if the consultant has business interest and the consultant's advice was taken,

then likely our CEO is overcompensated, right? Likely OC.

So there's our A implies B conditional, right?

There's our A implies B conditional. So we can conclude B or you can conclude not A, right?

You can conclude B or you can conclude not A. That's what this conditional is useful for.

Again, just basic conditional logic, right?

Well, you got to be careful because a lot of trap answers are going to try to get you to conclude not B, which you can't.

This conditional is utterly useless for you to try to conclude not B.

You just cannot. I don't know what my conditions are to push me to not B, right?

So you got to be very careful about that. Let's take a look at the first answer.

See, like when you say definitely, I already don't like you because I don't have conditions that push to definitely overpaid.

I have conditions where, you know, if you're going to try to tell me that, oh, likely overpaid.

Okay, I can go with that, right? I can see if the rest of your, if your premises,

if your premises satisfy the sufficiency conditions, you know, was there a consultant involved that had business interest?

Was the consultant give advice? If both things are check, then I can conclude you're likely overpaid, right?

I can't conclude you're definitely overpaid. Not to mention that this bit also does not match this bit, right?

Just doesn't match what? Because your salary 40 times more don't appeal to common sense, right?

That's not going to fly. B says the president of Trusco is probably a fake.

Likely overpaid, probably overpaid, right? So if you're going to conclude likely overpaid,

that's my conclusion. Your premise just need to satisfy this and satisfy this, right?

Let's see. Total annual compensation package determined five years ago by a consultant, right?

By a consultant when the company's profit all the time. Yeah, come on. You failed.

There's no way I can conclude that you're likely not overpaid.

I don't have conditions that pushed it likely not overpaid, right?

It just doesn't matter what you say. You could make a totally fine and reasonable argument, right?

It's not going to have anything to do with answering this question.

D says the president of Trusco Corporation is probably overpaid. Good. Probably overpaid.

Again, we have the conclusion that it's likely or probably overpaid, right?

So now I need your premises to match this to match my sufficient condition and does it well,

let's see board directors term and compensation by following the vice of children.

Cause it perfect. So this one is good, right?

Yes, it was right. Like who has many other contracts with the corporation.

So business interest check. So we do have a CBI and we have a C a right this bit matches our premises.

We trigger the sufficient we conclude the necessary.

These are correct answer choice. He says the president is definitely not overpaid again,

You whatever you say next is not going to fix this fatal error.