@Robogf Noted! I'll add it to the list.

@Jpetro92 The other valid argument form is just the "A -> B" form:

A --> B

A

Thus, B

Notice that "not B" is not a valid conclusion.

This is wrong:

A --> B

Not A

So, Not B

@LucyClark It's just the a difference in how to think about "government responds irrationally." The video represents this as "/RR" (which means not responding rationally). So if the government doesn't have freedom of speech, then does not respond rationally.

If the government does respond rationally (RR), then there is freedom of speech.

The text chooses to just keep the word "irrational". So If no freedom of speech, then government responds irrationally.

If the government does not respond irrationally, then there is freedom of speech.

What matters is that you recognize concepts are the same -- the exact representation in a diagram isn't important.

@bob247hammer

If the theory behind (A) is what (B) directly states, then wouldn't (B) be a better answer?

What we care about is what most people do when aware that someone's preference is something besides roses. (A) isn't making clear whether most people send roses because most people want roses (or because they assume that most people want roses). But this is a situation in which someone who knows Drew well would have known Drew prefers something besides roses.

@FultonHoover The drills shouldn't be pulling from all tests. The most recent are reserved for only sections/PTs. You can change these drilling/section/PT pools under your Settings -- let me know if you have any trouble seeing this.

@LukeLambeth (You can also just ask here). Let me know what you're having trouble with on this question. Is there a certain answer you're finding hard to get rid of?

@elysestraka See how it's relevant in this question:https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/intro-youtry-1-pt123-s3-q22

Further in this module you'll also see these:

https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-1-pt111-s3-q18

https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/drill-pt124-s3-q19-pt110-s2-q23-pt112-s1-q14

Those are just a few examples of how conditional logic is tested in real questions.

@Laylay That is what the inclusive OR allows -- he might kill both.

"If he doesn't kill R, he must kill B"

That doesn't mean he has to kill only one one of them. I know it might sound like that, but think through the logic:

If he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B.

If he doesn't kill B, then he must kill R.

What if he DOES kill R? Does that tell us what happens with B? No. He might kill B, too.

What if he DOES kill B? Does that tel us what happens with R? No. He might kill R, too.

So "If he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B" actually does mean inclusive OR. It's saying he has to kill at least one of them. He can't kill 0. He has to kill at least one. It's not precluding him from killing both, even though it might sound like it does.

@Feitan Those sound like good anticipations. The issue here is getting clear on exactly what the question is asking. It's not asking, "What's supported by the passage?' or "What would the author agree with" or "What would the author consider to be part of the technique's effectiveness"?

It's asking what the author meant by that specific phrase "the technique is, in fact effective"?

Consider this argument:

This training program will make you an effective basketball player on offense. First, it will improve your 3-point shooting ability. Second, it will help you with getting better shots. Third, it will increase your ability to finish layups when contested. Fourth, it will improve the speed of your shooting form so you can get shots off more quickly against defenses closing in on you.

What does the author of this argument mean by "make you an effective basketball player on offense"?

(A) helps you score more points

(B) help you finish layups more effectively

(B) isn't correct, because it's not what the author means by the phrase "make you an effective basketball player on offense." Sure, layups were one part of the evidence for how the program will make you better on offense. But that's not the meaning of the author's use of "effective." It's one thing that the author thinks goes into becoming more effective, but it's not what the author means by using that phrase.

Consider another argument:

"Studying will help you get into law school. First, it will help you get more LR questions correct. Second, it will help you get more RC questions correct. "

What does the author mean by "help you get into law school"?

(A) increase your chances of getting admitted into law school

(B) get more RC questions correct

(B) isn't correct, because that's not what the author means by "help you get into law school." Sure, getting more RC questions correct is one thing mentioned as support for how studying will help you get into law school. But it's not the meaning of the phase "help you get into law school."

Does this make sense? That's the central reason I'd move on from (B). Why would "help introduce counterarguments" be the meaning of "effective" when "effective", as you anticipated, means something more like "be more resistant to bad info about the client." Counterarguments is such a specific aspect of being resistant to bad info; sure, it was mentioned, but that's not the meaning of "effective" in the way the author used it at the begining of the 2nd paragraph.

The courtroom settings issue may or may not be another way to get rid of (B). I'm not saying that's a wrong reason to get rid of it. But to me that's a small thing that I wouldn't really need to think about to get rid of (B) confidently.

@Feitan Right, I don't think anyone is suggesting we should draw a diagram for this question. Many explanations simply use visuals for the purpose of clarifying the logic for those who don't understand it well. But by no means should you be drawing out stuff on the vast majority of questions. Probably just 1 or 2 questions in a section are worth some kind of diagram.

@KateA That's not our intention! J.Y. is just sharing a high-scorer's analysis of the different answers and why they're wrong or right. Is there a particular answer choice on this one that you felt this "judgy" tone? And to be clear, do you feel that this tone is suggesting judgment of viewers? Or is there some line of reasoning for a wrong answer that you felt was not addressed, and so eliminating the answer is unsatisfying? Just trying to get clear on exactly what the problem is and how it can be cleared up here or in future explanations.

@MattStickles We're adding more! If you want similar questions, you can filter for MBT and Quantifier.

@180-Energy This is useful once you've gotten more experience with different question types. It won't make much difference in the first half of your studies, though.

@EliBelly Are you referring to "/(heat wave abate) --> blackouts" and "/blackouts --> heat wave abate"? That looks like the contrapositive to me.

This depends on your GPA, too. But I think yes. It looks like you can bring your average above 171. There's plenty of time to study and take the test when you're ready. If your average isn't 174+ by April, then consider June or August or Sept. And if you end up with below 170, you can just cancel the score. No explanation needed.

@Garrett_dom It's possible that no dogs are friendly. We can't infer that it's true, but it hasn't been ruled out.

@ShanR Check out the video explanation of Question 5. I think it'll address this issue.

@minimeech I read "X lowers Y" as causal, because X is playing role in the lowering. Compare "drinking alcohol lowers situational awareness" vs. "children have lower situational awareness than adults." In the first, "lowers" is a verb, meaning that something is doing the lowering. But in the second, "lower" is not a verb, so we don't know that being a child is causing the lower awareness. They have lower awareness, but we don't know exactly why.

Are you looking for something like this? https://coda.io/d/_dj7lkOBkoTW/Conditionals-Cheat-Sheet_suuk1MYb

@180-Energy Can I ask what you mean by "couldn't it also be"? Are you asking could this be true? Or are you asking whether that's what the statement is asserting?

"To master logic it is necessary to see improvements on your test score"

The question is what is that statement saying?

@Feitan Let's start with why you think B might be right. (I understand that you think A is better, but if B is alive at all, it must be because you think there is support for the idea that it's an accurate description of what the author means by "the technique is, in fact, effective.") So what is the reason or reasons that you think it sounds potentially correct?

Also, here's a related question: what did you anticipate before going into the answers as the meaning of "the technique is, in fact, effective," and what gave rise to that anticipation?

@EduardoRios Treat this like learning a new language. How long have you been studying? If it's just been a few weeks, then that's nowhere near long enough for this stuff to feel comfortable. It can take months. There's a learning curve, and you're probably still in the beginning part of that.

Separately, depending on where you're starting and your score goals, it's OK to skip past this module and come back later. (The lower your starting score the lower your score goal, the less important mastery of tough conditional logic is.) Many would benefit from focusing on Arguments and Grammar and saving conditionals/intersecting sets for much later. You will want to come back eventually though.

Also, don't think you need to feel 100% comfortable with every lesson before you move on. It's OK to feel a bit confused and to bookmark lessons to come back to.

@Laylay But you negate it make the necessary condition. The necessary condition is the "then" part of a conditional statement. So the statement means "If it's a holiday --> then it's NOT within August" and "If it's August --> then there's no holiday"

@Jpetro92

What can we conclude from the following statement:

If A is true, then B is true

Give me the 2 different valid argument forms using that conditional.

@dnewsome100 You can click into the drill that's linked in the summary above the video: https://7sage.com/drills/build/drlt_031krgxiePYApsG7lALaM6