here's my reasoning if it helps anyone

Stim:

love = feeling -> /ones control -> makes no sense

---------

no one should take love to refer to feelings

--------------Answers--------------

a. this is a given fact we already are given this in the premise

b. if not in control -> not make promise but this ends in the wrong place we are saying the interpretation of love should not refer to feelings not if they should make a promise or not

c. okay love can refer to other things besides feelings but this fact doesn't support anything regarding how it should be interpreted in marital vows

d. if it makes no sense -> should not be interpreted in that way. This is what the argument gets at the conditional claims in the premise link interpreting love as feelings to making no sense and with this if it makes no sense then it concludes as the argument presents that love should not be interpreted as feelings

e. ends in wrong spot what doesn't make sense not how it should be interpreted

just a tip I know the bridge of PSA and SA has been a bit foggy for some of us and many of us really have seen for the most part no difference in question types but I think this lesson does a good job pointing out an important difference

It was constantly repeated in PSA questions that the correct answer choice may apply in a lot of cases more broadly for example it will present a rule with broad conditions that the argument often meets via more implicit facts which falls into the broader category This is why PSA questions of not 100% guarantee validity of the argument because it doesn't explicitly use the language of the implicit facts

for SA these questions are much more granular, meaning the facts and conclusions have to map directly onto each other via a rule or in this case looking for another premise to bridge that gap Notice the difference in language of these question types if it is not explicitly stated that for example Delacruz is the most productive and that no other candidate that applied currently works for the company we can not ensure validity of this argument

So just a tip moving forward I think when you are able to identify a PSA question stem just know what the correct answer may try to trick you by presenting a rule that is over inclusive vs over inclusive rules in SA do not ensure validity For both question types we need to be sure to not confuse sufficient and necessary conditions as well as kick up any conditional statement of the conclusion up into the set of sufficient conditions

is it okay to automatically eliminate questions like D for being in the wrong set because I remember a few questions is PSAr that the answer choices presented principles or rules that were the contrapositive of the facts presented in the argument and were right for that reason even tho lets say they ended or started in the wrong place.

I guess for this one simply knowing that if the contrapositive was taken it still doesn't properly draw the arguments conclusion about the motive for refusing the competitors coupons

I feel for C and I'm embarrassed after seeing the difficulty level. But I wanted to say this here because I realized why I went wrong and wanted to share for anyone who has made a similar mistake in the past or on this question.

We need to be careful about context I defiantly put to much thought into what the context meant in relation to the argument and put less emphasis on the P -> C structure that the correct answer played on.

Context is just table stetting information an argument may refer to it via indicators but it should not be considered in strengthening or weakening the argument we must look solely at the P -> C support structure and in these WSE we will assume the P to be true. The conclusion we can push towards truth as well by strengthening the support or brining it to question by weakening the support via a question that attacks the support of P -> C. In most answers they will play on the fact that the premise fact is still true regardless of the direction we want the argument to go W or S.

Note: correct me if Im wrong on thinking this always looking for helpful feedback

in reading the explanation I brought up a point I got stuck with on a question a few back the one about car thefts and crime conviction rates.

is It wrong to think that there is some kind of discrepancy in all of these questions making us think something here doesn't make sense because on that crime question. that thinking cost me the answer I couldn't find what the discrepancy was as I thought yea higher conviction rates on its own would be a deterrent to the number of car thefts. When I went to the answer choice I wasn't focused on finding an answer that would simply answer these two facts as I was trying to find a discrepancy or something that doesn't make 100% sense

so is it safe to say the right answer choice is more so just explaining the two facts in the phenomenon

@Hanifa Yea im with you on that grammar is defiantly tricky and when that's paired with unfamiliar topics for me it becomes a challenge to even know what's going on. Im not a perfect test scorer but if you need to bounce any study ideas off someone feel free to reach out. best of luck with your studies

im also planning for the September test however may delay to October if my scores are not where they should be but. I think a big flaw of mine I had while I was going through the curriculum was not practicing the concepts I was learning. I recommend taking times LR sections while going thru LR and defiantly mix up days of RC into your schedule don't limit yourself from mastering one section of the test at a time because my the time you spend all your energy into brining up your RC scores (which is also my weakest area) your going to have forgotten or not be as effective with some of the questions and concepts we have been learning in the LR modules

@FultonHoover I think that is an irrelevant concept the facts in the argument I considered are below

to farm meat it cost a lot of grain

grain can feed more people than meat

grain production is slowing

---------------------

it will be morally wrong to eat meat

B directly weakens this, it doesn't matter if cattle or sheep are raised on gain, we are saying that there are ways to raise meat from grass and not grain, additionally the production of grass is not affecting grain in any way. Thus making it not "morally unacceptable" under the terms of the argument to eat meat

the only assumption we must make with B is quite reasonable being simply that cattle/sheep produce meat.

in the visual shouldn't we be scooping some As into the B bucket and also scooping some Bs into the A bucket if we want to be able to reverse the <-s-> claim. I fully understand that some is reversible but the visual says otherwise if you scoop only from A to B and then B to C