I chose AC E because I thought that garber was saying, "hey mackay, your belief that the tulip situation was an example of a speculative bubble is irrational." so I thought that garber would agree that anyone who sold the tulips at a low price would be irrational.

but I see now why AC E is wrong. that the tulip prices were low after the crash is just a fact: the prices dropped at that point in history. there's nothing irrational or rational about that; it's just a thing that happened. we don't know what garber thinks about the state of minds of the tulip sellers.

can someone confirm is my reasoning is right?

#feedback I'd like to see q22, 23, and 26 in the show question area

I'm confused because it seems like AC E is attacking one of the premises in the argument - "either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall or else workers for the province would be dismissed."

By saying "keep the workers," AC E presents a different option from the binary. But the stimulus' premise states that binary and I thought we can't attack the premises?

There's an assumption between "the press agent did not tell every reporter everything" (prem) and "it follows that some reporter can scoop everyone else" (conclusion)

The phrasing "did not tell every reporter everything" is key. This phrase could still mean that equal information was shared, in which case reporters can't scoop. But the argument assumes that unequal information was shared and thus reporters can scoop.

so AC E bring us back to the possibility that equal info was shared.

The way I understood this q is that the stimulus is reasoning across two different time periods:

when students are in town for the school year (= more parking tickets)

vs. when students are not in town (= fewer parking tickets)

therefore most parking tickets go to students

So then I went through the ACs looking for arguments that compared two time periods. That helped me narrow down to D and E.

AC D seemed a little off so I went to check out AC E.

AC E states:

when other children visit (=more snacks)

vs. when other children don't visit (=fewer snacks)

therefore most snacks go to other children

This is parallel to the stimulus. AC E it is!

fml i knew this was sufficiency/necessity confusion but i did not understand wtf C was saying

fuck yeah Theodora

I understand this question but I'm confused about what JY is saying at 9:30. C states, "discipline does not cause misbehavior on the part of animals other than dogs."

From what I understand, C is saying that discipline doesn't cause misbehavior in other animals EXCEPT dogs. Which means that means discipline doesn't not cause misbehavior in dogs, right?

So, as JY says in 9:53, if we grant this assumption (discipline doesn't not cause misbeh in dogs), how does it contradict the conclusion?

"doesn't not cause misbehavior" doesn't equal "encourage misbehavior," but it also doesn't expressly contradict

@Aroldan15 honestly same boat. I wanted to tear my hair out the first time I saw this, but after going forward into the LR section and encountering more questions like this, I'm able to come back to this and have it make more sense.

#feedback this drill would be more useful if it drilled more ambiguous/tricky question stems like SA vs. PSA vs. Strengthen and skipped over very obvious ones like "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?"

5/5!!!! I started to read the stimulus in the voice of a gossipy dummy whom I look down on and whom know I’m smarter than. That prevents me from making assumptions/leaps to fill in the discrepancy. I tell myself to be dispassionate as I look through the answer choices and do POE.

@AlizaGGG love this example, ty! diagrammed it for anyone that finds visual learning helpful

@susanatovar This is really helpful, the only thing is that at the bottom, when you write

lawyer ‑m→smart→enjoy coffee

... I believe it actually leads to MOST lawyers enjoy coffee, not just some lawyers enjoy coffee (ofc tho, some is contained within most).

"Most before all":

Premise: A —m→ B → C

Conclusion: A —m→ C)

I stumbled on this too!

Here's what I think: Because we start with a dependent clause ("when politicians resort to personal attacks"), our attention is drawn to "personal attacks". In the following independent clause ("many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention") the two subjects "many editorialists" and "most voters" occupy an equal position, which means "personal attacks" from the dependent clause carries over and applies to both.