This teacher is incredible

@MarkDossey yeah I was like well this will be a 2 star and was shocked when it was 5.

@SwagOD I mean he knows how to dribble he just wasn't elite at it by nba standards. His defense shooting and off ball play is why he was as good as he was in his prime.

I don't really have tips per say as much as saying yeah man you are not alone on finding this question type difficult. I am on this portion of the study plan and this is the first question type where I have had to really slow down my studying to analyze what is going right and wrong. I think so much of it is determining the conclusion and then how the premises build up to that conclusion and what is missing to guarantee the conclusion. The other thing is deciding what facts are useless vs genuine premises.

@wgresh The problem with D is you confused it as a conditional rule when it was saying that in GENERAL qualified economic advisors command higher salaries than what the city is willing to spend. The test writers baited you into assuming that the one the city hired was not qualified because they were willing to accept a salary lower than what most qualified advisors accept, but it is possible they are one of the qualified economic advisors who are willing to accept a salary within the means of what the city offered. B, however, isn't claiming small cities can't benefit; it's showing that the evidence from the comparison cities may be less predictive of what will happen in this materially different city.

@AreeshaSaif I think you’re missing the full causal chain. The argument says the mild winter caused birds to forage naturally instead of visiting feeders as much.

C tells us that birds at feeders are more vulnerable to predators than birds foraging naturally. So now we have:

mild winter → more natural foraging / fewer feeder visits → less exposure to predators → more birds survive → larger population.

That gives us an additional mechanism connecting the mild winter to the larger bird population. Without the mild winter, more birds would have relied on feeders, where C says they would have faced greater predation risk.

What was her original score? If she started with, say, a 162, but because she is a high achiever, thought that was bad, that is very different from someone who started with a 140 and had to work their way to a 174.

@c00lbeans D actually pushes against the argument rather than strengthening it. The conclusion is that corporations' actions influenced the government's funding decisions, based on the fact that corporations discouraged alternative-energy projects and those projects then had their funding cut.

But D tells us that some projects corporations encouraged also had their funding severely cut. So the government's funding decisions don't seem to consistently track what corporations want. If corporations discourage projects and those projects lose funding, but corporations encourage other projects and those projects also lose funding, that gives us less reason to think corporate influence explains the funding cuts.

Was DBZ popular for you young bucks? Im 34 and this was a big part of my childhood!

@ShahmeerRaza I think you should go through the wrong answer choices and deduce why they are wrong if you are not able to do it for all the wrong answer choices correctly watch that particular answer choice you could not explain properly why it was wrong.

@InderpalSingh So if it's a political administration that is both economically successful and successful at protecting individual liberties, it is an overall success

A= Economically Successful

B= Successful at protecting individual liberties

C= Overall Success

A plus B arrow C is the conditional statement

It then says an administration that fails to care for the environment may succeed overall IF it protects individual liberties

It then tells us the present administration hasn't cared for the environment but has protected individual liberties

From the second statement, it meets the condition that the administration can be successful. How ever in the first condition we have just B stated in the stimulus not A so the reason c is correct is because it is saying that since the 2nd set of rules r met as long as we have A we will have A plus B which will trigger C.

The reason B cannot be correct is we have no idea from the stimulus whether the current administration is economically successful or not that is a way bigger inference to assume it is not based off what we are given in the stimulus.

@JLoyd So I think you have the contrapositive incorrect. You have A plus B arrow /C, which is right, but then you invert it to / A or / B arrow C; that isn't the contrapositive. That is an inversion error.

The contrapositive should be C arrow /A or /B

The reason we know it is /A is because the stimulus tells us C occurred and /B did not occur (B occurred), so the only way the rule works is if /A occurred

For the latter part of your question in the original statement of A plus B arrow /C BOTH A and B need to happen to trigger not /C

For instance, if I say If I am Hungry and Tired, I will leave. I need to be BOTH Hungry and Tired in order to leave. If I am Hungry but not Tired, or Tired but not Hungry, the condition does not meet the standard to guarantee that I will leave.

Think about it if I say some marbles are red. We are saying that out of all the marbles in the world, at least one is red, possibly all. If I then say, "Some things that are red are triangular; therefore, some marbles are triangular," you'd be like, "wtf are you talking about? Marbles are round, not triangular! In reality, some things that are red are triangular, which does not guarantee that all things that are red are triangular; it just says some are. Red marbles could very well be part of the group of red things that are not triangular.

All Athletes are tall.

Some tall people are uncoordinated.

Therefore there are some athletes who are uncoordinated.

This is possible but we cannot guarantee the conclusion based off the premises given to us. There are less athletes than tall people those athletes could be part of the group that is actually coordinated.

For my sports friends

All NBA players are tall.

Most Tall people are uncoordinated.

There are some NBA players who are uncoordinated.

The thing is, all the NBA players may just be in the minority of tall people who are coordinated. Based on the information given to us, we can't conclude this.

@sillybillyblu This should work like if Harry has 10 friends, more than 5 of whom are wizards.

Some Wizards are his friends; it is just saying at LEAST one, possibly all, wizards are his friends. The main thing we are guaranteeing is that at least one wizard is his friend, which is true based on the premises.

@Steffy Hopefully our speed improves lol

@TcBuzz I was confused by this too. What I think happened is that the sentence contains both “no” and “unless,” which makes the translation a little tricky.

If we say:

“No Gryffindor is brave.”

The Lawgic is:

G → /B

When “no” connects two groups, being in the first group guarantees that you are not in the second group.

Now look at the actual statement:

“No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery.”

Let:

G = chosen for Gryffindor B = exhibits bravery

A clean way to translate “unless” is to treat it as “if not.” So the sentence means:

“If a student is not brave, then they are not chosen for Gryffindor.”

In Lawgic:

/B → /G

Then we take the contrapositive:

G → B

So the final Lawgic is:

G → B

Or in English:

“If you are chosen for Gryffindor, then you are brave.”

The important thing is that bravery is a necessary condition for being chosen for Gryffindor. Being brave does not guarantee that you will be chosen for Gryffindor, so B → G would be an invalid reversal.

@TaylorCiarallo Yeah, so if you go back to the lesson on Some. JY mentioned that in everyday use, when we say "some," it normally applies to a few, never all. If there are 10 marbles and I say I have some of them, the normal assumption would be that I have like 2 or 3, not all 10. JY was saying that, strictly in the world of formal logic, "some" means "at least one to all." So, in the world of formal logic, when I say I have some of the 10 marbles, the only guarantee is that I have at least one, but I could have anywhere from 1 to all 10. So in the Persian cat example, when it said some are not Persian cats, all we know for certain is that 1 is not a Persian cat, but it is possible that none of them are Persian cats; we just can't say that with 100 percent certainty based on the information given to us. If it is explicitly stated in the premise that some but not all are not Persian cats, then you are allowed to make the assumption that not all are Persian cats.

Everyone who participated in the town's annual spring cleanup was given a community recognition certificate.

ASC arrow CRC

Some of the people who participated in the annual spring cleanup are not active in the town's artistic circles.

ASC some arrow /TAC

Because Some is bi-directional, we know that some of the people who participated in the Annual Spring Clean-up are not active in the Town's Art Circles, and some of the people who are not active in the Town's Art Circles participated in the spring clean-up are the same claim.

ASC some arrow/ TAC

/TAC some arrow ASC

We can use the some before all argument to conclude

A some arrow B

B arrow C

A some arrow B arrow C

A Some Arrow C

To conclude that some of the people who received a Community Recognition Certificate are not active in the Town's Arts Circles

ASC arrow CRC

ASC Some Arrow /TAC

/TAC Some Arrow ASC arrow CRC

/TAC Some Arrow CRC

Answer Choice B is the only one that confirms our work, as it says AT LEAST ONE person who received a community recognition certificate is not active in the town's artistic circles.

/TAC Some Arrow CRC Proves this

@TaylorCiarallo So "some" can still mean "all" if I have 100 cats and say some are black; the only true guarantee is that at least 1 is black. It is possible that " some can still mean all depending on the context. In my example, I think it's obvious that " some doesn't mean all, but in the example from the problem, we don't have enough information to definitely conclude that some does not mean all.

@FatimaYahya Yeah I think this can work

All Cats are Mammals

Some pets are cats

Therefore some pets are mammals.

All Cats are Mammals

Most Pets are Cats

Therefore, Most pets are Mammals

@GK Even A Some Arrow C is not guaranteed. There are 50 percent or fewer B's that are not C's. For all we know, all the A's in this sample size are part of the B's that are not C's.

If I have 20 A's and they are all B's, and I have 100 B's in total, and most of those B's are C's, we know at least 51 B's to all B's are C's. That means there are at most 49 to 0 B's that are not C's. If there is a scenario where I have 20 A's and they are all B's it is still possible these 20 A's could be part of 49 of the B's that are not C's.

All Cowboys fans hate the Eagles

Most Cowboys fans hate the Giants

Some NFL fans who hate the Eagles also hate the Giants.

It took me 4 minutes 49 seconds but I eventually got it right. I was deciding between C and D completely forgot that Most is one directional not bi directional like some. Hopefully this will come faster and faster with practice..... hopefully.