@duanchuyu I think you're focusing too much on the rodents and not on the logical gap between rodents and tumors. I did that too, and i eliminated C because of depends.

Thank you all! ♡

For the first time my design background helped me with a question! Cuz we're taught that through emphasis of the size, text hierarchy, and color you can direct the eye to what's important!

*Edit* Sydney Parella only charges $75 for personal statements!!! (sydneybparrella@gmail.com) is who’s helping me. She’s a 3L at Duke Law, and I’ve been working with her since May. I personally think she provides so much good feedback, and she revised my essay (fixing typos & suggested a few word changes) and gave recommendations on how I could improve.

I was totally lost with my adversity essay (I think I had 12 different ones that I started but couldn’t finish) and she was able to piece two of them together and shows me a draft of how I could fit the two together. I still have to built on it, but I never thought to combine the two.

You could get a free consultation and feel if it’s a good fit!

I'm assuming Hana didn't want them to be at the party, but she expressed interest in the recording

I thought E was wrong because it was stated in the chain, and we need an assumption: C -> /P

(C -> /T -> /P C+: P -> T -> /C = C -> /P and P -> /C

But the biggest reason is that it doesn't address H

I’d be down to virtually study together, I’ve also studied for a year but I’m at a 162

I didn't realize the author was saying that people use only one or the other in the premise.

I assumed both could've been used since "few people seek out sources other than news and television". Going in with the assumption that both could occur at the same time, I thought the author was essentially saying, both Sufficient conditions occurred (direct involvement from television, and Appreciation from newspapers) but the necessary condition didn't occur.

I didn't know what type of flaw that would've been, so I choose D because it sounded like confusing S w/N (which I know isn't the flaw.

I clearly had a translating issue, but how would I have been able to understand that the author was saying that you can only use one or the other?

Nooooo, I loved having all my notes accessible, how are we able to find the notes we already made????

Just because some didn’t use it, doesn’t mean it was not valuable. I really hope you reconsider this decision the future.

Sincerely, A previous UX/UI designer

@gloriafero it would weaken because it's indicating that not many people are aware of it, and if they don't know about it they're probably not using it. So it's suggesting an alternative cause.

I narrowed this down to D and A, and I thought the "sometimes" in A would've been weaker and choose D instead...

I understand how the premise somewhat says this, so it's not additional support. But now I see it's a level 1 questions and the analytics have marked D as a 160, and A as a 159... Why, what does that mean?

@TestLles But the stimulus does say that they're overdue. Why would it need to be written in the AC if it's in the premise?

I eliminated C because I thought the motive would apply to the burglars as well, not just the victims. So we could've argued, that the burglar who stole was justified because of their financial circumstances.

Am I just bringing in too much outside information? I thought answers that would apply to both variables are typically wrong, or is that for specific answer choices like strengthen/weaken, flaws, ect?

I didn't diagram this, but I was hesitant to pick A because of the "in most instances". The premise was very general (in the sense that it felt like it applied to all) but, this Ac was like "most of the time"

Was the most cases somewhat implied in the premise, or am I being too critical?

I know this would be easier if I identified the flaw, but I got this more through the process of elimination than finding the flaw...

@SamanthaNeville It's not C because it's saying how "insects have affected plant evolution."

Primary substances (Ps) were like requirements the plant needs to be alive, meanwhile Secondary substances (Ss) were genetic mutations that increased the plants chances of survival.

Insects never affected Ps they only influenced Ss.

--

Think of Ps as unconscious bodily functions like breathing, thinking, and reflexes.

Can someone please clarify why the principle won't allow us to conclude what is truly great, even if it meets the necessary conditions?

I know why C is wrong (see below), but I wanted some clarification on the explanation

↓ ----

Premise: Truly great -> Original + far reaching Influence

C+: ~O or ~ I -> ~TG

(⚑ OR means that if it's missing just one of the conditions it's still going to lead to the same Conclusion of ~TG)

B) This is right because we know it doesn't meet the condition of it having influence, which confirms it's not "truly great"

O + ~I -> ~TG

C) O + I -> TG (this is the opposite of the logical change) it's switching the necessary with the sufficient.

I was between B and E, but I picked E because I thought it was stronger than B (because B had "Most"). Anyone have any tips on how to avoid this?

I keep getting picky with word strength and it's messed me up before...

@MuskanKaur Diagraming Conditional logic would help with these types of questions. If & Unless indicate a S and N condition. So it's possible to diagram which helps you visualize.

Tip: Unless is always giving us the necessary condition

I got this right but I'm wondering if my chaining process is right. Did we need to add the: 2 Species-> ~CR, or should we just view them as supporting facts?

Support

• CR -> +1E

• 2S -> ~CR

Conclusion: ~CR -> ~+1E

Logical Inference: ~+1E -> ~CR (not conclusion)

I don't see how it added any value, but I could tell from CR -> +1E and the Conclusion that it was a flawed contrapositive because it was just negated and not flipped.

---

Also: In the support, CR -> +1E, 1E is the necessary condition, and but in the valid inference: it becomes the negated sufficient condition (~+1E -> ~CR). Is that why the Conclusion is mistaking S for N? Because it was ~CR when it should've been ~+1E?

@SavanaTipton

D is quantifying the # of disagreements, making it more evident that she is disagreeing w/ All of them more than once.

So based on her rules of: (D>1) -> ~V and (D<1) -> V

(Disagree more than 1ce: D>1 -> No Vote

and Disagree less than 1ce: D<1 -> Vote)

She is supporting her rule of: if there is more than 1 Disagreement (D>1) than she is not voting (~V): (D>1) -> ~V