@lawstudent0109 Just wanted to slide in here that our objective for Evaluate questions is not to weaken the author's argument; instead, it is to judge the validity of the author's argument. We never actually get to decide that the author is right or wrong (that job is for Strengthen or Weaken questions), we are only deliberating over it (that's why it's called Evaluate).

So we are selecting an answer choice that allows us to think "what information would I need to judge whether the author is right or wrong?" This information, whichever way it could be answered, could weaken or strengthen the argument, but we never know which direction it will ultimately go; but that is fine because that's not our business anyway, we simply need to know that this information has the capacity to do either.

I state all this to say that B is not correct because it weakens; B is correct because it is a piece of information that could allow us to judge the validity of whether dogs are averse to being treated unfairly. The info in B, whichever way it is answered, could let us know whether the author is right or wrong, which is why B is the correct answer choice.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my takeaway from Weaken questions here is that doing so does not always mean we're weakening the strength of the premises. The whole objective of W questions is to undermine the logical framework of the author's argument that their premises --> conclusion. Here's where the issue comes in: the previous lessons say weakening the premises doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion isn't true, that instead our objective is to just weaken the author's assumption that their premises fully support the conclusion. However, the explanation of D being the correct answer indicates that there ARE some cases where an additional explanation (cost in this situation) does weaken the author's conclusion.

#Help

Ugh I'm soo confused, could someone please explain to me what our objective is when dealing with Causal Mechanism and Causal Chains for both Strengthen and Weaken questions?

Up until now I have understood the Phenomenon hypothesis and the Ideal experiment framework, but I feel that this section does a poor job of effectively explaining what our objectives should be for Causal Mechanisms and Causal Chains; I seriously do not even understand how we are supposed to approach these. The "You Try's" for the Causal Mechanism's(AKA lesson 5) don't seem consistent enough for me to least at least derive a central theme, and then we have this???

@AnaColuma I got this one right, so here's my thought process:

We need to find an answer choice that tells us why the residents still think the mayor's performance is great despite being allegedly guilty of violating ethics. Better yet, why did his performance rating remain unchanged?

I always do POE for RRE. As I read each answer choice, I'm immediately questioning their sufficiency to resolve the issue/question at hand, not their validity. So here's my thought process for all answer choices in quotes:

B is wrong, "cause why do we care about the opps again? It does nothing for the issue here."

C is wrong, "okay, even if they didn't know, WE still don't know how this would affect the performance ratings; C requires even more mad assumptions on our end before it would even do anything for the argument."

D is wrong, "Umm, what's our business with the Anti-corruption group??"

E is wrong, "Cause okay, even if he defended himself, that still does nothing to explain why the performance ratings remained the same". See now, most people picked E cause they made the intuitive assumption that "oh ofc the people must have believed him, which is why the performance ratings remained the same," when in reality we don't even know how these people would ever react to his claims.

A is correct because it answers the question of why the ratings remained unchanged. Is it a strong explanation? Eh, but is it the strongest among the rest? yes.

I got this one right, so here's my thought process:

We need to find an answer choice that tells us why the residents still think the mayor's performance is great despite being allegedly guilty of violating ethics. Better yet, why did his performance rating remain unchanged?

I always do POE for RRE. As I read each answer choice, I'm immediately questioning their sufficiency to resolve the issue/question at hand, not their validity. So here's my thought process for all answer choices in quotes:

B is wrong, "cause why do we care about the opps again? It does nothing for the issue here."

C is wrong, "okay, even if they didn't know, WE still don't know how this would affect the performance ratings; C requires even more mad assumptions on our end before it would even do anything for the argument."

D is wrong, "Umm, what's our business with the Anti-corruption group??"

E is wrong, "Cause okay, even if he defended himself, that still does nothing to explain why the performance ratings remained the same". See now, most people picked E cause they made the intuitive assumption that "oh ofc the people must have believed him, which is why the performance ratings remained the same," when in reality we don't even know how these people would ever react to his claims.

A is correct because it answers the question of why the ratings remained unchanged. Is it a strong explanation? Eh, but is it the strongest among the rest? yes.

@CeciliaBurton1 lmao I didn't know we could add stickers/gifs on here, slayyy

@Arthurxx I got 3/4 on the "You Try's" and 5/5 on this drill, so here is what has helped me thus far:

Unfortunately, the lessons do an ineffective job in explaining MOR clearly, so I just took my time to "decipher" the Theory and Approach and Review section into my own words. Once you do this, you will realize that the goal of MOR is to simply figure out what happened in the author's argument; that's it.

Take your time to look at each answer choice, then ask yourself "Did this ever happen?" If it never did, move on to the next until you find one that did happen.

Again, you just need to figure out what the author is doing in their arguments, which is where the distinct reasonings may come into play; the author may either use one of the reasonings or none of them at all.

@AyishaHilal slayy, glad it helped!!

A tip that has help me maintain accuracy in this section is to make sure you know the relationship between/role of every statement in the argument as you read the stimulus. This will allow you to be confident in the role that the stimulus plays. The excerpt is not an isolated issue, you must know how it works with the other statements/what the others do, because how else would you determine that it is a premise, context or sub conclusion. Slow down and analyze the argument as whole.

I didn't want to switch either because of the difference in visuals/aesthetics; it was really throwing me off, as I used the classic version from the Foundations to halfway through the LR content. However, I switched over a month ago, as the classic will disappear soon.

Now, I can confidently say that this platform is way better. I like that the notes are parallel to the content being covered. I like that you can see the analytics of your drills and not just for prep-tests, which boosts confidence overall cause you can see your accuracy % on drills you've done in the past month or week, etc. You get the gist.

There was an LR question on Typewriters and Keyboards that stated people generally hate to switch to the more advanced device, even though the change would bring about greater efficiency, which is analogous to your current situation. You'll get used to it in about a month, lol.

@AyishaHilal Remember that all MBT questions tell us to take all the statements in the stimulus as true. So that means all the premises/rules must be true. So if the rule about Club Members that did not rent > 10 videos is true, you can subconsciously ask yourself: okay, so why doesn't Pat follow that rule? Well, it's because the stimulus never established Pat as a member, so why would the rule apply to her? That MUST be the reason because the stimulus, as we know it, makes no exception to the rule of members who don't rent >10 videos. Answer choice D bridges the gap.

Simple explanation for why C is wrong is that believing the hypothesis would give us absolutely nothing. The hypothesis in the stimulus itself is asking "whether or not Homer created both books". Since that is our hypothesis, how the heck can we believe the hypothesis when it doesn't make a direct claim for either side? See? we literally can't do that. This was my own thought process that allowed me to eliminate C and select B, so I hope it helps!!

Yes, tysm! this is what I came to realize as I continued to practice. Most of it makes no sense to me, but I stopped trying to make sense of it and just negated to see if it destroyed the argument and it helped!

wow, first try with this and I only got two wrong! With practice, I know I can master this. JY was right, this kinda is faster when eliminating answers. I'm a slow reader, and I tend to forget easily under pressure, so this with the low res sum, helps ALOT.

yuhhhh I finally got a five-star NA question, after crying and losing my edges a couple of sections ago. What's helping now is that I usually get down to two answers, so I just pick the one that wrecks the argument when negated. I don't even try to make sense of it cause it legit does not make plain sense to me at all, but I just use the negation tactic and it works.

#Help, what should we be paying attention to for NA? The premises, right? What is our method of reasoning, or better yet what exactly am I even looking for in a stimulus like this that doesn't make the requirement obvious? I got the earlier parts of NA, but I've struggled with the last 2. HELP

It's used this way in Economics quite often, so reading some articles from sources like The Economist would definitely help like he suggested previously.

same, but I'm prioritizing accuracy now. You can't speed through what you don't understand. Master it first then increase speed gradually.

Guys Guys Guys, I got 5/5？？？ 👁️👄👁️Bro I've been struggling with PSAr questions all day yesterday, but I got everything straight today? Let's keep going guys🥲

I oddly find PSAa question stems wayyy easier that PSAr. The PSAr subset literally made my head hurt.

Finally ohh

I relate so0 much I literally wanna throw up 🥲. I hope it got better for you

#help sighh... Guys I'm really struggling with PSAr question types. I understand the "rule and applications" thing, and I know the 4 levels of indicators for necessary and sufficient indicators, however I am not quite sure I grasp how I am supposed to approach PSAr question types. I end up with two options left and always pick the wrong one. Ik we should be looking for a rule where the premises in the stimulus triggers it, but I keep getting it wrong. Maybe I'm not approaching them properly? Idk, I'm soo confused and frustrated, please SOMEBODY lmk if I'm missing something, or a way to approach these questions.

Real

Hiii what issues do you have exactly with Lawgic? maybe I can help