Spent a lot of time on notes for this lesson. Best explanations for answers are in the review section at the end.

Can someone break down why C is wrong in their own language, preferably using lawgic? Thinking I might have to review sufficiency/necessary conditions.

I chose D but would not articulate my reasoning for picking it in the same way the video does.

I paid attention to the fact that if UW revoked Meyer's PHD even though he didn't falsify data towards his PHD, it still matters that he committed scientific fraud at all.

So, the rule must state that anyone who is a PhD from UW cannot commit scientific fraud---not just at the school (which answer A is giving the narrower range of), but in the field as a whole.

Got it right on blind review. Remember to anchor to the conclusion and treat the answer choice as enhancing the premises already there. What is conducive to progress in physics? If the field of physics was doing "the same thing" as biologists, aka more effectively preventing scientific fraud.

enhanced safeguards --prevents--->fraud---->conducive to progress

contrapositive: /conducive to progress--->/preventing fraud.

^Answer A is the contrapositive of the conclusion.

Before looking at the video explanation, I chose D at first because I narrowed it down between D and E. I was paying attention to the hypothesis conclusion, which was comparing and contrasting the benefits for consumers of parks and telecom., and zeroed in on D also focusing on the dissimilar benefits for these consumers.

However, E is the better answer because it takes into account both the premise and the conclusion. The premise states that telecom. privatization-->COMPETITION--->improve service + lower prices (benefits). According to the politician, the competition is the driving force behind benefits for consumer and park visitors (mentioned in the premise and conclusion). But D really weakens this argument by stating that this driving factor is not very powerful for parks.

I think the beauty of E is also that it uses the premises against the argument. The argument says that the strike can kill many organisms nearby, but it doesn't impact organisms worldwide beyond that limited range. But if most of the world's dinosaurs live within that limited range (nearby the strike), then yes, the Chicxulub asteroid did cause many of the last dinosaur species to go extinct.

Got the causal chain breakdown of the stimulus correct, even noticing that the first premise, A-Acid--prevents--->lowered cog. function, seemed disconnected to the other premises supporting the conclusion. However, I got the answers wrong because I got distracted by reading into the confusing language.

If you know that you need to be looking for an answer that tries to make the premise about A-acid relevant to the conclusion, then every answer other than B is immediately eliminated.

Focus on which premise needs connecting to the conclusion, and find its resolution in the answers!

Got the causal chain breakdown of the stimulus correct. Still chose wrong answers the first time and for blind review...

I chose E but definitely went back and forth between A and E. I didn't have the analysis on A like the video had, except for the main criticism that A is just another correlation that doesn't provide much support directly to the hypothesis. It's a correlation that can be added on to the correlation between family size and allergy development provided in the premises-phenomenon. However, the question is asking which one of the answer supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis focuses on the variable of exposure to germs during infancy. Answer E most directly speaks to the hypothesis-conclusion, as the condition of a child being put in daycare before age 1 necessarily means being exposed to way more germs in infancy. The result of E confirms the hypothesis-conclusion's prediction of these germ-exposed infants developing less allergies.

The stimulus baits you to focus on the size of the families, but if you pay attention to the last sentence, the hypothesis-conclusion, you see that the answer is going to most likely talk about children's exposure to germs (and any conditions that will contribute to that).

I think the written answer explanations were easier to follow than the video.

why give the suggestion of coming up with your own hypothesis if it generally isn't a good tactic

I think interpreting the last sentence as:

more panthers (250+)--->increase habitat

did not seem like something I would have worked out on my own.

When I tried to rationalize it for my self, I took note of the "any" as a Group 1 sufficient condition indicator, and qualified "more of these animals" AKA more panthers as the sufficient condition. And then understood it as there can NOT be any more of these animals, turning it into /more panthers

Then, I translated "their current habitat is NOT large enough as /current habitat

So for me it looked like: /more panthers--->/current habitat.

However I'd have to look back at the stimulus when hunting for the answer to understand that by /current habitat, I meant a habitat that is large enough.

It's definitely clunky but I'm struggling to naturally come to the video's way of interpreting that last sentence.

Here is how I rationalized answer choice C (did not get it on actual or blind review) because I didn't really like the video explanation's reasoning:

Ramona agrees with C because she believes that technical majors often "miss this" (referential phrasing), i.e. "exposure to a wide range of ideas" by focusing on major specific classes.

Martin also agrees with this by implication. Martin is agreeing that technical majors might miss out on "exposure to wide range of ideas" IF they focused on just classes related to their major. Meaning that the technical major focused classes provide a narrow scope of ideas, without introducing other kinds of classes.

*What is confusing is that Martin goes on to say that they eventually get exposure to other ideas because they are required to take some liberal arts classes. Which is what my brain keeps focusing on and thinking that Martin and Ramona disagree on answer C.

---->For timing, I'm thinking it might have been easier/accurate to translate "not every" into:

"Some university classes expose students to a wide range of ideas"

1/5 on the first pass and then 4/5 on the second pass. The first round I did not slow down to put answers on spectrum of support or map out conditionals (being lazy). Actually wrote out/spoke my thought process for the blind review. Shows that it definitely matters to do all that work at this point in the learning stage.

Really struggling with the order of chaining the conditionals. My first pass I did:

resource plentiful-->leisure--->study natural process--->complex discoveries

Is the issue that I should have started chaining conditionals after "The early societies that domesticated plants...." because that is the beginning of the argument/turn away from other anthropologists' claims?

Just feel like the video explanation doesn't consider that I might have started chaining conditionals at the beginning of the passage (which I think is one of the first premises).

It seems like in other people's answers that we should ignore the term "all" in answer C and recognize that it is still the most supportive. But that seems like ignoring what we have been coached to see as a red flag. Also not choosing D because the author's didn't talk about the importance of storytelling still doesn't negate the fact that storytelling plays an equal role (whatever that role is) in both present and past cultures. I'm still not convinced that C is better than D.

@kythax I don't know if there's a hack for this in general but the "resource constraint" part actually helped me narrow down the answer to B. If you have "limited" opportunities to advocate, then that necessarily means that you have limited resources/avenues (aka resource constrained) for protecting endemic species. Hence you are resource constrained and therefore should concentrate what limited resources you have into protecting hot spot habitats....which I see as a superset that encompasses many endemic species. This ensures that at least some endemic species will be protected (as opposed to the more constricting answer A of "only....").

Reminder to bookmark this one :)

How is "Some cats that can kill prey that weigh up to half of their body weight have a high muscle-to-fat ratio." an inference we can draw?

I know they are both the necessary conditions resulting from the same sufficient condition of good hunters....but how does that allow us to draw a relationship between the two necessary conditions?

I got this question right. However, I'm confused by how we are applying the some/all rules for the premises.

Why couldn't we say that because succ GD<---s--->FT and succ GD<-----s----->informal, that there can't be a relationship between some successful graphic designers who are formally trained also receive informal training. For the purpose of the answers, I know that that isn't a helpful piece of information, but I just don't understand why there can't be an overlap between those two concepts.

Does it have to do with the all-->most-->some chain of operations?

Thanks.

Q3: Feels like a really big jump in assumption that from getting the last conditional of

worthy-->pure heart

that it tell us that because "pure heart" started the chain of conditionals, that we should move "worthy" all the way to the left of the chain.

@HilarySackor You writing this out for the Kumar example actually helped. When you draw out the subset and superset diagrams for the Kumar example, like they did for the valid application section, it becomes more clear.

so with comparison statements that depend on "required" it seems like its better to ignore whatever comes before what's "required" and first focus in on the "A than B" portion of the statement. Would it be fair to say that " blah blah required" is likely going to contain the quality or trait that is being compared?

For question 4, why wouldn't "and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition" be considered an additional object clause to be drawn out and separated? Would "and so" not be considered its own predicate object if it is linking a different clause/point to the same sentence? Or does this not need to be separated out like that because it is a cause and effect relationship? 

@Gregmjr That's also what I thought. It seems like a claim that can stand on its own and be supported by the following sentence/premise.