When I started these, I was hating them so worried about conditional logic etc. Honestly I got a drill with 5/5 on normal, and 4/5 on the hard and hardest questions. I think the trick is to notice the similarities in structure with a question.

Stimulus: A species in which mutations frequently occur will develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation. Since species survive dramatic environmental changes only if they develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation, a species in which mutations frequently occur will survive dramatic environmental changes.

Answer: A person who is perfectly honest will tell the truth in every situation. Since in order to be a morally upright person one must tell the truth at all times, a perfectly honest person will also be a morally upright person.

It doesn't always work this way, but notice how the concept that appeared at the end of the conclusion also appeared at the beginning of the second premise?

All known deposits of the mineral tanzanite are in Tanzania. Therefore, because Ashley collects only tanzanite stones, she is unlikely ever to collect a stone not originally from Tanzania.

D) The only frogs yet discovered on Scrag Island live in the lagoon. The diet of all the owls on Scrag Island consists entirely of frogs on the island, so the owls will probably never eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon. (right one) 

C) Frogs are the only animals known to live in the lagoon on Scrag Island. The diet of the owls on Scrag Island consists of nothing but frogs from the island. Therefore, the owls are unlikely ever to eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon. 

In this instance, D is right because in the stimulus the word used is ONLY which refers to ALL, whereas in C just refers to "Of the owls" instead of all, even though both refer to eating solely frogs. One uses the exact same argument strength as the stimulus.

I'm sure there's a million other ways to solve these but this one I think is pretty reliable. There's another question about cats where it requires both biting and claws, and the corresponding argument also includes two concepts. You kind of gotta think that way a bit.

I found when they organized this lesson it was tricky (but maybe good) because they started with very hard questions, but honestly I found once I did a drill with easier questions I was able to find a simpler way to solve and understand these types, so when I got to the hard ones it was easier to replicate. Only took me 4 hours.

When I started these, I was hating them so worried about conditional logic etc. Honestly I got a drill with 5/5 on normal, and 4/5 on the hard and hardest questions. I think the trick is to notice the similarities in structure with a question.

Stimulus: A species in which mutations frequently occur will develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation. Since species survive dramatic environmental changes only if they develop new evolutionary adaptations in each generation, a species in which mutations frequently occur will survive dramatic environmental changes.

Answer: A person who is perfectly honest will tell the truth in every situation. Since in order to be a morally upright person one must tell the truth at all times, a perfectly honest person will also be a morally upright person.

It doesn't always work this way, but notice how the concept that appeared at the end of the conclusion also appeared at the beginning of the second premise?

All known deposits of the mineral tanzanite are in Tanzania. Therefore, because Ashley collects only tanzanite stones, she is unlikely ever to collect a stone not originally from Tanzania.

D) The only frogs yet discovered on Scrag Island live in the lagoon. The diet of all the owls on Scrag Island consists entirely of frogs on the island, so the owls will probably never eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon. (right one) 

C) Frogs are the only animals known to live in the lagoon on Scrag Island. The diet of the owls on Scrag Island consists of nothing but frogs from the island. Therefore, the owls are unlikely ever to eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon. 

In this instance, D is right because in the stimulus the word used is ONLY which refers to ALL, whereas in C just refers to "Of the owls" instead of all, even though both refer to eating solely frogs. One uses the exact same argument strength as the stimulus.

I'm sure there's a million other ways to solve these but this one I think is pretty reliable. There's another question about cats where it requires both biting and claws, and the corresponding argument also includes two concepts. You kind of gotta think that way a bit.

I found when they organized this lesson it was tricky (but maybe good) because they started with very hard questions, but honestly I found once I did a drill with easier questions I was able to find a simpler way to solve and understand these types, so when I got to the hard ones it was easier to replicate. Only took me 4 hours.

I'm by no means good at these at all, but I've found the trick to at least get some of them right is to notice where one concept appears.

So for the stimulus, the conclusion ends with the idea of "high-technology businesses". And in the premises, this concept appears in the second premise, or second sentence.

In C, the concept of antique dealers appears at the end of the conclusion. Similarly, the concept of antique dealers appears in the second premise, at the beginning of the second sentence. It only took me like a minute and 51 seconds to do it, I'm not sure that's always what applies but usually if the conclusion is weird in one, it's weird in the other, even if it doesn't appear in the same place (which it does in this case).

I GOT ONE I GOT ONE RAAAA

A lot of these are pretty easy, you just read the stimulus and think... what's wrong with this? Why wouldn't people choose the option they say they want if they say they want it? The answer is probably something like D, where they just don't know that what they want is an option! I find the trick to solve these, from 1 star to 5 is literally just what sounds simple enough to break the reasoning. Yep.

26 seconds unddaaaaa (call me the undertaker)

I found the best way to do this question was to focus on what the argument hinges on. Forget flaws for a second. What's the most important distinct feature that the whole thing relies on, which concept? It's about approximate age, which E answers. The others try and trick you by assuming the argument hinges on other details. And B is just confusing grammar, but this stimulus isn't Abstract to Concrete, it's Abstract to Abstract.

I find the best way to think about sufficiency necessity confusions is to simply write it as.

Enough versus Must/Needed/Required

A: Infers that something that is enough to provide a motive is Required to provide a motive.

Maybe it's just me, but I succeeded on these fairly easily by just assuming the weirdest most out of place answer was likely the right answer if I couldn't figure out the assumption right away. LEEEEEEEEROY JEEEENNNKIIINS

How precious :)

Nice 11/12 let's go!

FIRST!

I didn't know they performed Shakespeare in Japan!?!?!?! Samurai Macbeth in the 80s! Apparently since the Meiji restoration it's been common