think of it as varying levels of impact. Both describe the impact one thing has on another just with different degrees of specificity:

eg.

drinking caffeine before bed affects sleep.

drinking caffeine before bed causes poor sleep.

"Affect" in a sentence with context like this example and in the above question can be more vague, it tells us there is some impact without a need to be specific.

"Cause" can be more explicit - it might direct us to more detail eg. POOR sleep.

Both, however, imply some impact one thing has on another when used in a sentence. Just typical LSAT semantics trying to trick us :)

minor premise -> supports minor/sub conclusion -> minor/sub conclusion becomes premise to main conclusion

It is a fact granted by the editorial - remember this argument is written by the editorial, therefore we should take it to be true since it's HER fact not a GENERAL fact. That's my thinking, hope it makes sense :)

Im in the exact same boat! I just started these an hour ish ago and right now what's been helping me discern between answer choices is by asking "what else/who else is missing" from this answer? If there are ANY alternate possibilities, then I know it's at least not necessary and that's all you need to eliminate and move on. (scroll down to skip example and get to main advice) Eg:

When evaluating this question, Answer choice D says "many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it's clearly written."

Who else is missing? Many ppl is not everyone. What about those that don't assume? What do they do? So this answer choice doesn't apply to the WHOLE argument. It doesn't include everyone and everything. So it's definitely not necessary. It might support, sure, but we need to look for something that includes the entire argument no matter what. Don't even bother wasting your time with the whole lawgic stuff and transforming the "unless" part of the sentence (as the instructor did above) because you've already figured out this is not a necessary assumption if you've realized it.

Answer choice A: People who browse the web for medical information typically do so in an attempt to diagnose their medical conditions.

What else is missing: What about people who DO NOT TYPICALLY browse the web for their own diagnosis medical information? Maybe they're doing it for someone else. Or maybe..? or what if..? or who else..? Blah blah blah. The point is, there's room for OTHER POSSIBILITES. OTHER QUESTIONS. Remember you can be in LA or NYC, yet for either one you MUST BE in the USA. Sufficient vs necessary assumptions.

Are these answers choices just the states or is it the country?? (sufficient vs. necessary 101)

To sum: interrogate every answer choice if you are doing process of elimination and really ask yourself, "what else"? Test each answer choice against what you know from the argument - if there's room for alternate possibilities, you know it's not your right answer!

I hope this helps :))) Good luck everyone

Misread the last sentence in the stimulus where it said the law should apply to all roads... I read all high-speed roads and immediately chose A. Once I re-read just a bit slower I got the right answer. Rookie mistake!

Stimulus summary - "My company should create a new campaign because it's a good shot at promoting this failing product in the market. Hopefully this will make it succeed." (Inference - but at what cost? would creating this new campaign harm the company in any way? hint hint)

B says: "Many new products fail whether or not they are supported by marketing campaigns."

-> B does not really weaken this particular argument, it just says in general, many products fail. How many is many though? 5 products can be many, or 500. Remember. MANY DOES NOT EQUAL MOST. Many equals SOME It's a plausible answer choice, but when you compare it to "D", it's clearly weaker (explanation below).

D says: "Undertaking a new marketing campaign would endanger the drug company's overall position by necessitating cutbacks in existing marketing campaigns."

-> This is specific. Remember, we take the statement of all answer choices to be true. "D" is telling us that creating a new campaign would harm the company's position because they would have to cut back on their other campaigns. There's a risk stated here! This lines up with my inference from earlier... Let's explore further:

--> Compared to answer choice B, this choice directly addresses the drug manager's main argument which is about MARKETING not about the PRODUCT. It lines up a clear path that if the manager markets a new campaign, then this would endanger the company's overall position. That's pretty bad... So, safe to say this choice is really weakening THIS argument, not just a general statement about products in general!

Remember, every answer choice is true, follow the truth to the end to see where it takes you! In this case, the truth of answer choice D would harm the entire company's position!_

I did the same, but it's always good practice to lightly ready over the other answer choices just in case, if anything, to affirm that the one you picked is correct (especially if you are still in the learning phase)!

The question stem is asking us, of the answer choices available, which one would the stimulus be able to reject. The answer choices are claims - we have to find the claim that would not be supported/ would be rejected by the stimulus. Let me explain:

Stimulus recap (more or less): the new workplace law prohibits smoking, but the law is unfortunately ambiguous and does not explicitly include smoking in homes.

Rule: no smoking allowed in workplaces

Exception: still legal to smoke at home.

INFERENCE: anyone working in a home would have to deal with second-hand smoke if there are smokers in the home.

Answer choice E is correct because A maid is claiming that she WILL be protected under this law... But wait - didn't we just read that home smoking is still allowed? And a housemaid works in a home?

The maid's claim falls under the exception of this legal rule. So, we can conclude that the law would actually reject this claim! The stimulus is saying "no you've got it wrong, you won't be protected!" ie. a rejection of this answer choice. This is what we are looking for. A rejection.

To clarify why E is correct and C is not:

-> Answer choice C is not being rejected by the stimulus. The stimulus is saying, yeah you're right, there's no protection! In other words, the stimulus is not rejecting the claim made by answer choice C. It's agreeing with it.

-> Answer choice E is instead being rejected by the stimulus. A housemaid is under the impression they will be protected by this law, yet the legal commentator states that the law won't apply to home smokers. So if you work in a home, you will not be protected under this workplace act!

I hope this helps simplify it :)

I think the main reason for drawing out chains is for when you find that nothing or very little is clicking in your head. Also, it guarantees that by writing out the complex argument simply in logic, it reduces risk of misunderstanding the argument through retaining it all in your head. Just depends on your level of comprehension and confidence! I didn't need to translate into logic to get the question right. But when I blind reviewed, I mapped out the logic to confirm if my answer selection was correct :)

Very well put :)

It could be both, we aren't given enough information to definitively say. All we know is that AT LEAST one, whether liquor or tomatoes, is on sale if it is a Tuesday. AKA - There must be a sale of at least liquor or at least tomatoes if it is indeed a Tuesday. Both could be on sale, or only the liquor or only the tomatoes. But if neither are on sale, then we know it is not a Tuesday. Hope this helps!

Here's the way I see it (don't quote me, I could be wrong):

The Kumar argument (simplified) is:

1. Students are late only if they arrive 5 minutes past the bell.

2. Kumar arrived 17 minutes after the bell.

3. Therefore Kumar is late.

The logic formula for establishing a VALID conditional argument is this:

1. A --> B

2. xA

------------

3. xB

Now let's apply the formula to the statement and find out where the logic went wrong:

1. Students are late (A, sufficient)--> 5 minutes past bell (B, necessary)

2. Kumar arrived 17 minutes past the bell (B) - it should be (A).

3. therefore Kumar is late (A) - it should be (B).

* " Kumar arrived 17 minutes past the bell" is referencing the B (necessary) component of the argument. By doing so, the argument wrongfully draws a conclusion to get to A, (sufficient) which is that he's late. aka, confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary condition, aka INVALID.

If you look at the formula above, A must be proven in order for B. Instead, the argument claims that B is the reason for A.

Here's the Kumar invalid argument in logic terms:

1. A --> B

2. xB

-----

3. xA

Here, A (sufficient) and B (necessary) have been swapped!

If you compare the organization of this argument compared to the correct formula above, hopefully this helps you see the invalidity of the argument. Hope that helps, sorry if it was confusing!!

Does this depend on the language being used in the statement? What if the statement was: If I go to the store, I MIGHT buy milk. Does this change the relationship of sufficiency and necessity?