I enjoyed the SA fast track lesson. I've been studying for 6+ months now and gave this video a listen this evening and found it to be an insightful "refresher" I didn't know I needed. Would love to see a similar video for flaw questions !!

#feedback #pleasehelp

If answer choice B said, "In many surveys, most people DO name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job" would this be a weakener? I understand why B is wrong but I want to be clear on exactly why it's wrong. It's pretending to attack the premise because it's trying to say the opposite of what the survey data is saying in the premise. This makes sense to me. But, by that reasoning wouldn't this make answer choice A in PT 114.2.12 a correct answer (since it's an except question)? I've linked that question below.

After running into 114.2.12 yesterday, I remembered this question from my wrong answer journal and felt I may have misunderstood J.Y. 's explanation. If someone could clarify this for me I would really appreciate it!

#feedback

https://7sage.com/question/PT114.S2.Q12

Ahhh I see. Answer choice B isn't trying to explain for the entire conditional chain, but simply one world where a piece of the chain is true. Thank you for clearing this up.

Hey Kevin, thank you for your reply. I really appreciate all you do and your explanations are God sent.

My issue is with the third part of the stimulus where you apply the group 3 negate sufficient rule. I understand the rule and its application here: If the profits do increase, then the traffic congestion must have decreased. But this is a must be true question. Answer choice B, "If the cost of living in the downtown area decreases, the profits of downtown businesses will increase" assumes that the traffic congestion has decreased or has gone unchanged. I get how when we apply the rule it can be connected to our chain we built for the question, but does this really make sense? How can the cost of living by itself ensure an increase in profits if the last sentence in the argument says that we WILL NOT have an increase in profits UNLESS traffic goes down? We don't know if traffic increased, decreased, or stayed the same based on answer choice B, so how does this answer "have to be true" based on the stimulus? I fear I may be too critical of the arguments or my approach to the question is all wrong...

Thank you again and I hope this clarifies my confusion.

#Help The way I read the last sentence of the stimulus is that for there to be profits, the traffic congestion must decrease. For B to be correct we must be assuming traffic congestion has decreased, because the stimulus says profits WILL NOT increase UNLESS traffic congestion decreases. I don't see how you can interpret the negation for this statement and just tack it on at the end. I see how it's a better answer choice than the rest, but I don't understand how it is right. Is there something in the stimulus before the last sentence that indicates traffic congestion will decrease? Cost of living can increase, but profits CANNOT increase unless congestion decreases. Can someone clear this up for me?