Safari,". The Trap (What it does not mean)

The most common mistake testers make is confusing the "AND" (\(\land \)) with an "OR" (\(\lor \)).

• Having just A by itself does not guarantee C.

• Having just B by itself does not guarantee C.

• You must have both A and B present simultaneously for C to be guaranteed. [1]

Example:

• Rule: If you study (A) AND pay the fee (B), you will pass the exam (C).

• Scenario: You studied, but you didn't pay the fee.

• Result: You are not guaranteed to pass! The conditions were not fully met. [1]

just lost, throws away all fundamentals lollllllllll

@jimbob Thank you for this explanation, I know this was a while ago but does that mean the principle A+B->C doesnt always work and how can we identify when it doesnt work?

Hey Kyle,

Im definitely interested!

So regarding to this," Patterns in the wrong answers:Wrong answers will tend to also be stated in general terms but they won't apply to the specific description or illustration in the stimulus."

All answers will apply to specific description or illustration?

It was taught that when unless shows up we pick a side, then negate it and make it the sufficient and other side necessary. Can someone help me under why it's not that in this case. Very confusing lessons.

"If M is adopted, then N and O are adopted." Cant we say if M is adopted then N is adopted without saying and O?

on Q5, " Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn.Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." Isn't the rule for cannot to pick either idea, then negate the idea, and then make that idea the necessary and the other the sufficient?

For question 6 if it had stated that, "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. Most intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subject." Would that be an argument since we do know that libraries do showcase a wide range of books on various subject or would it need to say that in the argument to confirm that? Is there a rule against inferring what we know in real life and adding that to an argument or does it need to be stated in the argument for us to confirm it even though we know it's true.