ran it straight down mid looking for AC with should and barely chaining claims didn't even read anything without should.

you can gorb it on zeel

genuinely spent 10 minutes on 3 to get the answer wrong both times idk why that was so hard

coming back here after realizing i really suck at conditional logic all the way from parallel method of reasoning LR questions is rough. I feel like I was demolishing causal reasoning or anything that wasn't conditional up to that point but the moment I ran into something with this kind of logic I would be stumped for 5 minutes. Moral of the story for anyone just starting out in this journey, do not skip ahead, stay focused and you will be far better off in the future not coming back to lick your wounds.

Would the conclusion become valid if after "her assassins planted a bomb..." there were a sentence about how she later gave the speech? This would trigger the sufficient condition of SAS --> /P.

@Kerington43 never is a group 4 negate, necessary indicator that functions the same as cannot.

the key term AC's are so strange they show up very often in my drills and are almost never the correct answer which has since made me curious what it would look like when it is the correct answer.

lol i was so confident i didnt even read past A

That felt really hard. I understood as soon as I answered A that no real information on how reliable DNA evidence is was a red flag.

@steamboatwillie Consider that Rolanda was aware of the 20ft city property rule. So -20ft of yard in Tom and Rolanda's mind. It could still be the case that the yard is larger than any yard they have seen, even if 20 feet of yard is city property because it is just a much larger yard. Say one yard is 3k sq. ft and another is 20k sq. ft both lose the same amount of sq ft but one is still much larger.

i feel like the reason people get this wrong in a timed scenario is not that it is logically complicated but that answer choice A looks like a trap. A is so obviously stating something in the way most people learn about suff and necc that it feels like a trick. Trying to psychoanalyze the test that you feel is designed to make you question everything may really get to people in said high pressure situation.

making psychologists look bad, what meaning does this hold at all?

I was so sure it was B but looked up the definition of qualifies and suddenly changed my answer lol.

i looooove these

Identifying traps is helping my accuracy so I appreciate these really tough questions.

eliminated B because its the parents that think the price of education is tied to its quality. The university president is not presenting that as his own belief, he just wants more applicants.

The '''almost''' invariably' is putting in a lot of work

man i was so sure about A and maybe B and then chose E in BR anyway my goodness that one hurts

@e.wimoine To be sufficient it has to strengthen the conclusion to a degree that it is believable and possibly valid. To be necessary it just has to be grounds for which something can be true.

wrote it out like how he does in the videos and man that is effective

got it right in normal and wrong in BR lol

i will say the readings before this comparing MBT to SA certainly made this confusing. I pegged A as being "correct" but not what the question was asking.

the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is something i only realized in BR

I see why these are rare, the gimmick in these questions is easy to spot once you know what you are looking for

i get these in my drills and they piss me off ngl