@JoelKeenan thank you

@sewhetstone You can go into settings and eliminate that function. I BR everything regardless of how I felt on it. The function just highlights questions that you "should" BR according to the time u took while answering, whether it's incorrect or not, or other factors. Realistically, you should BR everything.

@meepmeep I agree

Is it fair to assume that I can automatically eleminate answers that are either irrelevant or that actually weaken the argument (in NA questions) ?

@smallbrowngirl28 These questions are asking which of the answer choices lends the most support (strengthens) to the conclusion (argument). In MSS, the questions will ask you which one of the answer choices is most strongly supported by the argument or premises provided in the stimulus.

WE GOT THIS DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU SCORED 0/5 BELIEVE ME YOU ARE MAKING PROGRESS

In answer E, why shouldn't I assume that less adolescent car thieves means less overall thieves, not that the proportion has changed? For example, lets say there were 50 adult thieves and 50 adolescent thieves, and with the statements in answer E I can conclude that now there are 50 adult thieves and 40 adolescent thieves. Is it unreasonable to assume that there are less automobile thefts because there are less overall thieves? Why should I assume that the proportion changed and not the actual amount?

@AshlynMiller I usually watch the video on a faster speed.

Why is it that in the original rule and exception lesson video, you point out that the rule does NOT apply if you are inside the exception, but now you're saying that we don't necessarily know if it applies or not if you are inside the exception?

Video explanations help, but this is very tricky

@CYS1123 nevermind I watched the vid and I understand now.

Idk if anyone could relate but I knew why A was correct but not why some of the other ones were incorrect.

@PatrickBonna What's been working for me is solely focusing on that unless (or without), and making the diagram with the two ideas without negating anything. Then, from there, determine whether one of the ideas is already negated in the way that it was written in the sentence. Once you have determined that, negate it again (making it positive).

I don't understand how the two conclusions aren't the same.

I understand how "If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur" makes sense.

"If the heat wave abates, then blackouts will not occur." I don't understand how that doesn't make sense.

Can anyone explain? The video explaining is not really helping me