I was rlly confused on why D was incorrect, so I asked Chat, IK I'm not supposed to... but it helped. Sometimes I just need to see an example of the wrong AC to understand why it does not work with question. Hope this helps someone!

ARGUMENT:

Arnot argues that making fundamental changes in government would virtually eliminate major social ills.But this conclusion is false. After all, Arnot’s argument depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the public interest.

What the argument would look like IF D (straw man) were correct

Arnot claims that if we give the government sweeping new powers, all social problems will immediately disappear and government officials will always act perfectly. This is obviously false, since governments are often corrupt and inefficient. Therefore, Arnot’s conclusion must be wrong.

Why THIS is straw man

• Arnot is made to say something stronger and different than what he actually argued

• “All social problems will immediately disappear”

• “Government will always act perfectly”

Those exaggerations do not appear in Arnot’s real argument.

The speaker attacks that exaggerated version instead.

UGA is 65% more likely to win the quarterfinal game against Ole Miss, UGA will almost certainly win the game and advance onto the semi finals.

I cannot make that conclusion because the likelihood=/= certainty.

Obviously... bc we lost... 💔

I was so confident, got it wrong. Then I was confident in BR, got it wrong. LOL like I hate this question

@CeciliaBurton1 Yes.

I actually suck at these, but I somehow got the last two questions right just because I turned off my brain?! Idek how to explain it.

Hi Sarah! I go to school in Athens, but I am around the Johns Creek area at times. I’d like to connect and share ideas whether that be online or in person! Sounds cool :)

@NalaniWood This honestly still kind of confuses me looking back at it, but yes you could say that "17 minutes" is equal to "more than 5 minutes".

I'll mention that being late and being cited as late is a very important distinction to make here. It's super confusing.

Also, memorizing the indicators for SC and NC conditions has been sooooo crucial to my understanding of horribly confusing relationships like these lol. I would have been even more tripped up had I not known that "only if" introduces a NC.

The problem is mixing the necessary (NC) for the sufficient condition (SC). The SC occurring will guarantee the NC, but the NC occurring does not guarantee the SC.

• Take a look at this for an easy way to visualize SC guaranteeing NC:

Premise 1: If one is a NASA employee (SC), they are smart (NC).

Premise 2: Charlie is a NASA employee

Conclusion: Therefore, Charlie has to be (is) smart. Valid conclusion.

• Now we will look at NC not guaranteeing SC:

Premise 1: If one is a NASA employee (SC), they are smart (NC).

Premise 2: Charlie is smart

Conclusion: Therefore, Charlie is a NASA employee?!? We cannot conclude that.

• Now here's an argument with the same format as ours:

Premise 1: One is a NASA employee (SC) only if they are smart (NC).

Premise 2: Charlie is smart

Conclusion: Charlie is a NASA employee?!?! No we cannot conclude that. (Reversal)

Now look at our argument:

Premise 1: Students are cited as late (SC) only if they arrive more than five minute after the last ring of the homeroom bell (NC).

Premise 2: Charlie arrived more than five minute after the last ring of the homeroom bell

Conclusion: Cannot reach a valid conclusion, we cannot guarantee that Charlie was CITED as late, although he technically was late through our real world knowledge.

The word choices within the argument are wild, but being five minutes past the ring/17 minutes past the ring does not incur being cited as late since Necessary Conditions do not guarantee Sufficient Conditions.

I hope this makes a bit more sense! It's probably not totally recommended, but falling back on the indicators has actually been my saving grace. If I effed this up, please let me know, it's midnight and I'm on hour 5 of studying LOL. Good luck!

Now the song is stuck in my head.

I though D was a mistaken reversal until BR where I noticed "accompanied each"... I need to slow down.

@Frosado What helps me is to always remember for MBT that the stimulus is the only thing I should focus on. I literally turn off my brain and pretend that I was born today, that I do not know anything about ANYTHING mentioned in the argument. It decreases the likelihood of choosing answer choices that make more sense to me based off of my previous knowledge of the subject.

Hate to say it, but strong foundation in conditional logic is probably most important. I used Powerscore to familiarize myself with the question types and now combining that with 7Sage, I feel more confident in these kinds of questions.

Hope this helps, I know I'm a bit late. Good luck!!

Got it right, but used a slightly different approach. I don't know if I should be worried or not.

@carlysnoble Super late to this comment, but I had the same issue. I found that I assumed that the only way for stalagmites to form is if the water level reaches the top of the cave completely. Who knows, maybe the occasional waves reach the top and then the water level lowers, I assume completely, because how could a stalagmite form if the floor of the cave is water? Need it not be solid/dry?

My background in science is so sad (let me know if my reasoning is crazy), but this is how I tried to reason with A being incorrect.

Hopefully this helps someone who was between A and B.

I'm feigning for a skill builder after a billion of these bland videos. Never though I'd say that, but here we are.

It makes sense to me at first, but then when I try to apply Lawgic to explain it, I start to confuse myself lol

@FarisPohan The "only if" stimulus states:

L -----> 5+

the negation would be,

/5+ -----> /L

Now, the conclusion is invalid because it states:

5+------>L

This is a reversal which is a type of incorrect answer within Conditional Reasoning (I had learned of this in a separate study material and figure we will learn of it soon).

For example, if I said:

"If you are a cat, you are a mammal" it would be wrong of me to reverse and conclude by stating "If you are a mammal, you are a cat". This example is obvious to us, but if you apply the same formatting to Kumar's example, you will see how we cannot reach a conclusion through reversal.

It initially makes sense to say "yeah, of course he is late!", but we have to throw that out fo the window focus on the precise SC and NC, despite the "truth" we believe.

Let me know if I'm wrong or mixed anything up!

@LisetteNevarez Thanks for a good laugh LOL

Hello, I am experiencing this issue as well. Is anyone from 7Sage able to help? Thank you.