Love the use of archaic and outmoded language. No reasonable person would understand what the hell A is saying.

@LowOriginalConnection I feel the same way. I cannot map out my reasoning, but rather I rely on intuition.

PAI will be my weakness for LR, it seems.

@Courtney Pierce Hey, Courtney. I'd be happy to help, but I don't think I can do so effectively solely on this comment. Would you like to coordinate a co-study time where we can run through these practice questions together?

@JimMcEnulty To add to my point, I don't know if 7Sage ever covers this, but there is an aspect of Lawgic that I have discovered. Let's look at the following argument:

All A are B.

A --> B

If we accept this as true, then the following must also be true:

Some B are A.

B <-s-> A

Or

If all dogs are pets, then some pets are dogs

Or

If all dogs are pets, then a random pet may be a dog.

@JackLaughlin It uses the hedging language of "may." "If you're a dog, you are a pet," supports the claim that "if you are a pet, you may be a dog," because we established being a dog is sufficient to be a pet, therefore if one is a pet, they may be a dog, but they could also be a cat, parrot, or some other sufficient condition, that latter point not being explicitly stated, but implicitly so.

However, if it stated that "The development of new technologies will accelerate economic growth in general," then your point is true, making the argument invalid. However, remember, the question asks which answer is most supported. We are not concerned with the validity of the argument that the answers make.

Does that make sense?

That makes sense.

Anyone hung up on Question 5, here is how I map it out.

Ume -> Blooms December to January -> blooms 2 months -> /bloom 3+ months

Amenable -> bloom 3+ months.

/3+ months -> /Amenable

Ume -> /Amenable

@JimMcEnulty If we look at these two separate conditional reasonings as policies of the school, the first one tells the teachers their limitations on what they can cite as "late" while the second example acts as a policy telling teachers they must cite students, at all times, for arriving more than five minutes late, but it's not the only reason they can cite a student late.

Students are cited "late" only if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell.

Under this reasoning, a teacher cannot cite the student late UNLESS they meet the necessary condition of arriving more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell, this doesn't GUARANTEE he will get cited. Maybe his teacher listens to his reasoning for being late, and they decide not to cite him.

Students are cited "late" if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell.

Under this reasoning, we are stating it's NECESSARY that students are cited late if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell (this is sufficient to be considered late, which means that there be other situations that result in a citation of being late). So in this situation, Kumar arrives 17 minutes late, his teacher MUST cite him as late, because policy (and logical reasoning) dictates it must follow.

@helisa18 I agree with you.

The last example, couldn't milk be considered a modifier of to drink? It answers the question what does the cat likes to drink, so couldn't it be broken down to simply be saying "the cat likes to drink."

@jzimo02 The argument isn't concerned with cost. All the premises relate to A) The capacity to produce enough meat to satisfy existing demand and B) The environmental impact of the methods of meat production. These premises do not support answer B in an effective way.

@Aedan Reinert Thank you, that resonates with me.

@AngelaOcana Best way I can describe, we have two arguments.

Everyone that drives a sports car is a middle-aged man, therefore, if you drive a sports car, you are balding.

The assumption here is that every middle-aged man is balding. This isn't a good assumption to make because it is very broad and easy to disprove.

People who drive a red sports car are more likely to get a ticket than the average person, therefore, if you drive a sports car you've likely been pulled over for speeding.

The assumption made here is that to get a speeding ticket, one must be pulled over for speeding to get it. That's a reasonable assumption given the context.

@TSpriester Excellently worded! Are you sure you aren't a lawyer already? lol.

@bcn I've added you.

@JaceGuinto95 I cooked a fettuccine and chicken recipe for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I nearly burned my apartment down and made a massive mess while doing it. The second time I did it, I didn't burn anything and made a very small and manageable mess. Keep it going, and you will get better, but remember, perfect practice makes perfect results.

I'm fighting an up-hill battle. I had a 3.3 GPA in my undergrad of Economics. I didn't fully apply myself in High School or College.

@bcn What part of Texas? I am in Dallas-Fort Worth and definitely interested in a study group.