Y'all are too kind :smile:
Working on this solution like the cure to cancer as we speak.
You're essentially saying that if a necessary condition is affirmed, its sufficient condition must also be affirmed which is something we know we can't do because there could be other necessary conditions involved that aren't mentioned in the stimulus.
By applying fertilizer (FA), we can't infer that (SPW -> FB) like you mentioned, because there could be other necessary conditions involved with planting seeds in the winter in addition to fertilizer being applied that must occur before the flowers can blossom.
Maybe you have to water the plants too. Maybe you have to plow the land before you plant the seeds. There could be other necessary conditions in addition to fertilizer being applied which is why your translation doesn't work. We just know that if you plant seeds in the winter AND they blossom, along with all the other potential necessary conditions being satisfied above, we know that fertilizer being applied was among them.
Check out the second and third sentences. The inference behind the verbiage is that 51% of the largest number ever, will always be greater than 50% of any smaller number.
For my explanation to make sense, we first have to agree that more cookbooks were sold last year than in any previous year. The stimulus doesn't explicitly say this, but I took the pairing of the first and second sentences to mean this. If anyone disagrees, let me know because I'm not 100% sure this is the correct interpretation (I'm thinking the second sentence would mean the same thing if we changed it by tacking on, "...than in any previous year," to the end.
Secondly, I wanted to change the wording of the phrase, "a cookbook not intended for beginners," to, "intermediate cookbook." I hate mouth-full terms and it's just easier to reference, "intermediate cookbook."
Finally, we have the second and third sentences really just saying, "There were more cookbooks sold last year than in any previous year, and for the first time ever, most of these were intermediate cookbooks." The 'first-time-ever' reference implies that in all the years prior to last, less than most of these were intermediate cookbooks and if you add this to what we already know which is that there are more cookbooks last year than ever before, we know we sold more intermediate cookbooks last year than ever before which is what, A, says, and what my first paragraph above mentions in a more abstract manner.
This made a lot more sense in my head...
The stimulus isn't talking about the melting of the meteorite. It's talking about the melted rocks at the impact site. The stimulus, in no way, is referring to the meteor that was blasting through the sky and then melted in the atmosphere just before it hit Earth, which is something I now understand you're original comment is referring to.
We don't care what happened to the meteorite from space. We are talking about the rocks at the site. The source of these rocks doesn't much matter (i.e. whether they are fragments of the meteorite or they were already embedded in the soil), we just care that they were melted by the "impact". The "impact" is the entity upon which we must focus; not the meteorite itself. So I'd agree, the melting of the meteorite has no implications in this argument. The cause of the re-crystallization of the rocks at the "impact" site does. That cause must be attributed to the "impact" and that is what D is saying. That is also what C is saying in a 'blocking' manner.
Sorry in advance for the length.
This is a really tough argument. It took me a couple reads to understand what was going on!
In your comment, you just negated an answer choice, and then argued that the negated version isn't necessary to the argument. That's not how the negation technique works.
The negation technique takes a correct answer choice which should be necessary to the argument, negates it, thereby turning it into a logical opposite, and then uses that logically opposite statement to wreck the argument in the stimulus. Not only is the negated version supposed to be unnecessary to the argument, but it's supposed to damage it, not be necessary to the argument.
The author is stating that because the crystals showcase an opposite polarity to that of Earth during the time of extinction, then we know they weren't melted when the mass extinction occurred. Okay, but how does that exonerate the meteor impact from being the cause of the extinction? It does nothing if left like that. Well, that's where the assumption of the meteor impact being the thing that melted the rocks in the first place come in, thereby implying the impact occurred at a different time than the extinction. If the impact wasn't the cause to the rocks crystallizing, then that premise does nothing for getting the impact off as the potential cause of the extinction.
I hope my explanation makes sense. If not, let me know. I could be wrong somewhere.
Just to make sure I hammer my point. If another thing caused those rocks to melt, then how could we then use their melting as evidence for why the impact didn't cause the extinction? We couldn't because we couldn't attribute their melting to the impact and that is important because the polarity is different from that of the Earth during the time of the mass extinction which tells us the rocks melted during a different time period than the period in which the mass extinction took place.
The argument never says society benefits as a whole. It just says a small segment of it usually benefits. This is the same thing as saying that these projects benefit a segment of society most of the time. If a segment of society is benefiting, we can say that society is getting some benefit.
I think benefit and enhancement are synonymous in this scenario, which makes A necessary. Do you disagree?
I think you had it right in that the author is saying that capricious enforcement is unlikely. He justifies this prediction by saying that although capricious enforcement could occur, since some acts are illegal according to some overly broad law, legislative oversight would prohibit that from happening a lot, since presumably, such acts which were never meant to be outlawed specifically and therefore wouldn't be pursued. This would keep the metaphorical agency focused on the conduct for which the law was intended to prohibit.
I think E is saying the opposite of what we need. Here's what I mean. We are told that our minds make up images for what our eyes see by forming mental constructs. We are also told that these mental constructs are usually accurate, but in the case of mirrors, they aren't. This is the theory of how our primary perceptions work. Our "understanding" of how primary perceptions work has to do with what I mentioned above - that our minds form mental constructs of the world indirectly. Our understanding of this is just knowing that.
What our minds do in the case of a mirror is actually a great example of this, so this front-to-back phenomenon really serves as an example of our minds doing this. An example of a theory certainly doesn't interfere with our understanding of that theory. It does the opposite. It supports our understanding of a particular theory by providing us with an example.
The example, however, is just one where our minds have it wrong, since mirrors are different than most objects in the world.
#25 Question:
Line 20 of the passage mentions just compensation being eroded, but doesn't the jury set this level of compensation which would imply that they intended the plaintiff to receive a certain dollar amount, which would finally be eroded by a lawyer's fee coming from that? Their intentions do matter, no?
I chose E under timed conditions, but I'm justifying it's incorrectness not based on the irrelevance of the jury's intention - which I argue is relevant - but on the notion that we aren't given information about jurors even thinking about what the lawyer should receive in these kinds of cases. We know they think about what the plaintiff receives (this is suggested, but who else awards the money in a case like this, so is this not a reasonable assumption to make on my part?) but we aren't told about whether they also think about what the lawyer should receive and that's where this answer choice goes too far. What do you all think? Is my reasoning sound? #help
YESSS!!! I'm replying to this comment instead of the one above because the site wouldn't let me directly reply to your comment above.
Analogous argument below:
I’m faster than you. Therefore, this establishes that I am fast.
Sufficient Assumption: You are really fast.
Necessary Assumption: You aren't really slow.
I know what you're thinking. That necessary assumption isn't actually necessary because even if you were slow, that doesn't preclude me from being fast. However, it does preclude us being able to establish that based on the evidence of my beating you in a race. We now need more evidence to prove that I am fast, like another runner who is objectively fast or a stopwatch, etc. If you were slow, my beating you no longer establishes my being fast, and in other words, that establishment based on that single premise falls away. We can no longer establish my speed based on my beating you. It's the establishment we are trying to wreck, not my possible speed.
Same thing goes here. If the children's artwork is bad, we can no longer establish AE as pleasant just because people think it's better than the children's artwork. That establishment falls away. Again, we are trying to wreck the establishment the premises are supposed to provide, not the pleasantness of the AE artwork itself.
If I told you that most of the artwork made by the preschoolers was trash, how would that let us make the claim that the consistent selection of the abstract art over them establishes that abstract art is pleasing? Any mediocre piece of work would beat out another that was trash, but that doesn't mean the former is pleasing.
That's essentially what a negation of B would say; that most of the artwork made by the preschoolers was aesthetically displeasing (i.e. offensive, terrible, unsettling, etc.). Of course the abstract expressionist work would beat out the preschool work if that were the case.
I think what we need to exploit is the establishment of the conclusion. It absolutely must be the case that most of the artwork by the preschoolers can't be garbage pieces of work, because if it were, we could no longer establish the abstract work as pleasing. That establishment sets a pretty high standard.
Not sure why, but JY's mentioning of me and Julio tearing shit up at a party made me bust out laughing.
Anyway, it took me a while to realize the second sentence wasn't imperative to the argument. It really just gives us a causal form of the first conditional statement (which is a level of analysis unnecessary to getting this question correct). I was trying to figure out how the hell that mapped out onto a preexisting flaw. The actual flaw of intending something that is just a mere consequence to an action didn't hit me until I came back to the problem.
I'd talk to attorneys if I were you to get an idea of why people hate BigLaw and whether that much debt is justified for that kind of school.
I personally think people hate BigLaw, not necessarily for the hours or hostile work environment, but because of how boring it is at times. Checking page numbers and formatting the table of contents until midnight probably stiffens any excitement you first get with your initial paychecks, especially for the kind of person attracted to law school (intellectually curious, philosophy-loving, creative thinking, literature analytic,etc. types)
In terms of that amount of debt being justified, I've been told that you can service it with a BigLaw paycheck just fine (granted you land a job which is where the risk is involved), but as others have alluded to, make sure you actually want to practice BigLaw for the foreseeable future. Make sure you go in with accurate expectations and choose a firm that fits you socially. Those things matter.
Yep, you're right.
At first I tried pushing back on your comment about us not caring about renewed shows. For instance, what if all the shows that weren't cancelled were police dramas, but even then, these renewed shows could only make up like 2 out of say 98 of the shows W&W put out, thereby still leading to the conclusion that police dramas are still likely to be cancelled.
In short, information about renewed shows, gives us no information on cancelled shows and that's what needs connecting with police dramas.
Can C also be eliminated by the chance that there were no police dramas produced by W&W last year at all, thereby rendering C completely useless? #help
This is the interpretation I used to get rid of B.
@rahelaalam514 Oh wow, excuse the typo! My comment should have had the "ski-related" incidents going from a hypothetical 30 to 12, not the alcohol-related incidents. My comment must have been mad confusing.
Either way, I agree in that the relationship given is one way and won't allow us to infer anything about alcoholic consumption.
I like how there are different ways to view stimuli!
I interpreted this as a "percentage" to "absolute amount" error. We know the rate went from 10% to 25%, but that doesn't mean the nominal/actual amount of those injuries increased. We would actually expect that if less injuries are happening on the slopes due to the technology increase.
Maybe in 1950 there were 3 of these alcohol-related injuries out of 30 total injuries (10%), but due to the tech update, those total injuries now amount to only 12, with the alcohol-related injuries remaining at 3 (25%).
You have to understand your task given to you in the question stem. We have to get to the specific conclusion of Murray not being eligible for the Executive Administrator position and A just talks about requirements that would allow someone to be eligible for a board position in general. What does that eligibility statement have to do with Murray being barred from the Executive Administrator position?
We know what people must have in order to be eligible for the board, and we know Murray is missing some requirements, but we're told he can't be some type of administrator. Well the assumption needed is that, to be an administrator, it must be that it has the same requirements as being on the board, which is what B gives us.
Your representations are logically equivalent. Someone being deserving of praise implies that person having to (at some point) discipline themselves to overcome some desire for the contrary.
Praiseworthy → Discipline (like you have)
The other way of interpreting the "unless" statement is how JY does it, and that is to have the statement before the "unless" indicator always holding in all situations, except when it doesn't, we know the exception to the rule has taken place (the cloud representation in JYs example or the statement coming after the "unless" indicator).
So for this scenario, the one time the praiseworthiness of a person is still warranted even though that person lacks any kind of desire to perform some bad action (indicating that avoiding the activity isn't difficult), then it must be the case that this person disciplined him/herself at some point in the past.
For example, if I say that all swans are white, but the one exception to a swan not being white, is a swan being black, then if we see a non-white swan (negate sufficient), we know it must be black because of the carve-out rule.
Unless statements are like statements that give us a universal rule in front of the unless indicator, while simultaneously having allowable exceptions given to us after the unless indicator if what's given to us in front of the unless statement is negated. Not sure if this was helpful at all. I found it kind of hard to explain!
I think the games below are beneficial for those finding themselves making "silly" mistakes when reading split game boards. Those mistakes are probably less "silly" and more indicative of a mechanical/procedural weakness you have - actually that was just the case for me. I don't want to paint with a broad stroke. Either way, I thought these were good games to do in a fool-proof kind of way to get splitting quickly and accurately down pat.
The lawgical implication stems from, "necessarily accompanies." This is the only indicator phrase in the whole sentence so that's where your focus should lie. Next, determine which variable that phrase is modifying. I.e., which of the two variables is that phrase talking about; A or B?
Once you determine which variable that phrase is talking about, next decide what it means to necessarily accompany something else? I.e. are you on the left side of the conditional arrow (sufficient) or the right side of the arrow (necessary). I think only one of these is obvious...
You should now have a good idea of which one of the above interpretations is right. If I were you, I'd lean heavily towards your hunch.