trying to use lawgic messed me up here so badly. I saw "no nation will be able to bear the costs of an action that will benefit everyone" and wrote "if willing to bear costs then not a a nation" and thus chose B because if no nation is willing to bear the costs necessary for decreasing emissions, then corporations will. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Also didn't like that it said "producing standards" I thought the issue was with abiding by and following standards, not just creating them. Felt like too much of an assumption to make that if all the nations come together to make emission standards then that means they will follow them as well.

any time I see a question about the economy or science I get it so so wrong

to build the habit because many answers are the contrapositive of a statement in the stimulus

any time you see a group 3 indicator, replace the word with "if not" (put a /) then the second half of the statement always stays the same.

so if you have "unless it rains, it will not pour" you would write (if not rain) /rain -->/pour (not pour)

for anybody new here, 3 months ago I made the mistake of glossing over this video thinking I understood it (despite getting every quiz question wrong lolol) and now have had to review foundations all over again after completing the logical reasoning section. It's ok if you do not understand it the first time. With time and practice it will come.

I just finished rewatching and taking notes on the video and now fully understand it.

Take it slowwwww. Because the info here is super important for future LR practice.

I think it's reasonable to assume in THIS CASE that if you are upset by something you don't enjoy it.

I almost didn't pick D at first because I was initially looking for an option that strengthens the critics argument. BUT I realized that though it doesn't strengthen anything, it definitely was the only option that doesn't weaken it. It just has no bearing on the argument. So, it was the correct option. Sneaky..

It goes to show that just because you are looking for an option that does not weaken the argument, does not mean that the correct option will actually strengthen it either.

I still dont get why B is wrong, and I read/watched the explanation. E seemed irrelevant because the stimulus never refers to people who are NOT of one's approximate age.

omg I chose E because I thought we were trying to resolve the discrepancy... I need to read more carefully

I still don't get why A is wrong. if they are more populous then there is more of them, which would increase the percent? I dont get ittt

I thought it was E because if the schools offered more computer-assisted programs in reading and writing (which they found computers to be of no use for) wouldn't that lead to the mixed reactions?. I thought B only explained why they liked it for arithmetic, only providing partial explanation for the discrepancy....

This one went way over my head and it was level 1 :(

I was stuck between C and E and chose C. I didn't like that E didn't help explain why there are more and more frequent instances of telemarketing fraud. For C I figured that if scammers have concocted a new way to scam that makes it harder to detect, this would lead to less complaints

@thawzinaunggyi602 I thought this too but still picked it because I was thinking extremely literally lol. babies and animals both cannot talk to their doctor's. and babies are humans. Thus it may be necessary for humans to have pain protocols in place

grammar matters with choosing the correct answer. no more of the students means "either the same amount or less than" and that is key for seeing how this strengthens the argument.

If the same amount or LESS California students had dreams about earthquakes before the earthquake happened and then the number of dreams increased after the California earthquake, it strengthens the claim that experiencing earthquake leads people to dream about them.

This one was so hard for me and I cannot understand why I couldn't even identify the gap. Then the other questions that were 3 or 4 out of 5 difficulty were easier....

I immediately crossed out D thinking it was only a necessary assumption that would still fail to bridge the gap between lower blood cholesterol levels and blockage of the arteries due to blood clots

How do you know when you should find the contrapositive. should this be something I'm doing for every sufficient assumption question? because not doing so led me to get this question so so wrong.

I keep mistaking resolve/reconcile/explain for most strongly supported questions

over time for two of them and that's after having my settings at 200% extra time... sad.

the reason I chose C was because the author was saying the entire collection is valuable (whole) thus, they believe they could never afford a single piece of work (part). This was the only option that when this direction in a way that was also flawed (whole --> part)

@TeklaCo the word "must" also is what indicates the necessary condition

I had to diagram this one and it took way too long. I recommend focusing on the accuracy first and not the time and make sure you are getting the lawgic correct first before picking up the speed.

I got it after taking 5 minutes to diagram 💀

I thought it was saying it is spending more than it needs on the maintenance of its bridges because they wouldn't have had to spend 400 million if they had only spent $15 million a year to begin with so that is why I initially chose C. But there is a key difference between maintenance and emergency reconstruction.