I think im late but its called mistaken reversal. You can also call it confusing necessary for sufficient. B is necessary (on the right) but you think its sufficient (on the left)

A → B

B, therefore A.

Absolutely not! Think of it in sets. There could be a billion B and 2 A. So if you're a B does it follow you're also an A? No!! Only if the 2 sets overlap completely in that case it would be A↔B.

I hope this diagram helps someone in the future.

Lets start with 3 diagrams:

Fiction ‑m→ LA

Fiction ←s→ upon request

Nonfiction SA or Published → renowned or requested

note: you could split the non-fiction diagram into 2. Both of the sufficient conditions alone lead to BOTH of the necessary conditions together.

E: Any unrequested manuscripts not submitted by literary agents that the publishing house has

published were written by renowned figures.

given this, go back to our diagrams.

Fiction ‑m→ LA

Fiction ←s→ upon request

knowing its not by LA and unrequested (i believe they wrote unrequested in hopes you wont see the un since its harder to spot unrequested than it is to spot not requested, this worked on me at least), we can strike out the fiction world. So, we must be in non fiction.

Nonfiction SA or Published → renowned or requested

We know it IS nonfiction and it IS published. So, it MUST be by a renowned person!!

For anyone debating D:

It says there is little correlation? What are you using to support that there is little correlation?

We know that those policies don't typically improve their existing satisfaction. What is their satisfaction? 100% because they already have the flexibility? or less? we simply don't know its "little" if the reason given in the stimulus is true, then it may well be A LOT of correlation, contradicting D.

I thought analogies were comparing similarities between two different things to say that theyre both actually similar.

example: a candle is like ice cream, both melt after a while. Terrible example, I know, but here the two subjects are candles and ice cream. Similarity is melting.

Here, I saw 2 drugs being compared, so I thought this can't be an analogy. Can someone confirm where I went wrong?

I chose D because I assumed chemically different → different results as an implied fundamental principle. I understand that I shouldn't be assuming.

Is another reason that D is wrong that it says "is incompatible," but the second person actually accepts the first person's premise about the mechanism?? And then they go on to say its chemically different.

Would D weaken?

the ones who did NOT report reduced pain were NOT the ones with the most pain.

of the 24% who didn't report, you'd expect them to be the ones that were struggling the most.

If they had relatively less pain (since they were NOT the ones who had the most pain), then it shouldve worked on them over others.

My anticipation, due to real world knowledge, was "if you make more revenue but not profit why? because expenses also went up" so I assumed that the prices of other things went up. A seemed pretty solid.

there are some problems with A

1. inflation is already accounted for, so even if prices for other stuff went up it doesnt matter because we still made money despite that

2. it says domestic not international. We started selling more internationally at higher prices anyway so it doesnt matter because in theory our money from international sales would still exceed prices going up

3. it says by the end of 1800. We're talking about 1840-1860. I would say this is mid 1800s. Anything can happen from 1860-1900. It is 40 years after all lol.

Lesson to myself: even if you think you got the answer (clearly you didnt here lmao), go over the rest with an open mind anyway and read them properly even if you do have to read them fast.

I chose D because I thought "wow, despite this their population decreased" But that wasn't the task. The task was to support that the population decreased BECAUSE OF a loss of habitat. D doesn't lend credence to this hypothesis nor any other.

I just assumed it decreased because of the habitat loss. I took for granted what the conclusion was set out to prove lol.

So C and E are wrong for the same reason; the stimulus says minimum one per month (could be more).

A and B are wrong because they're missing key words. A says "construction" not "major construction with excessive dirt" and B doesnt say "request"

I eliminated C and E easily but was debating between A B and D. I didn't see these language shifts.

Lesson: when debating between choices, pay close attention to the language and compare choices to each other.

I dont really know but if I had to guess it would be because D discusses cause and effect when thats not in the stimulus. We dont know what causes this disease/problem. Nor do we know what the effect of it is. So how can we say stress is one or the other? In real life stress probably is somehow related to the disease but we dont have information from the stimulus to support it in 1 way or the other.

I wonder if B would be right if it said stress instead of pain.

However B does say "heart patients" instead of the specific ones we're discussing, so I guess that would be a reason to eliminate B that I didn't see at first.

I didn't like this question because it goes against what one would normally think, so I had to reread it multiple times and waste time even though I did select choice A. Congrats to LSAC for getting to me!

Also, I spent so much time on the other questions because I was like "this is easy and hard at the same time" the other choices were SO random they had me thinking if i missed something or not. Ugh.

E negated would kinda strengthen like the video says. If it didn't have the "not" then it would've been better because once negated the "not" would appear. It wouldn't be necessary though because that doesn't have to be the only way for it to get stuff from underground. We're told that it could bend its neck down. So perhaps standing up was sufficient. But if you dont see the jump from "not up" to "must be down" then E does look attractive.

Hi,

I had the exact same reasoning and was about to make a comment until I saw yours.

I chose A, not because I was more engaged (i'm hardly engaged/interested with rc topics lol) but because of the passage's references to Ayer and Hume. This made me think the author is very serious about whatever points they're making. However, I could also say A is more engaged for a different reason though. A uses words like "you" and "our" in which they are directly engaging with the reader.

So, upon review, I agree with this video that A cannot be right. A is indeed talking about a radical change in the way we think about the law whereas B is just going on about a different side of the same topic.

I agree with your points, and I'm now learning that using someone else's arguments doesn't mean you yourself (author of B) are engaged. You're just reporting. Like you said, you're not making arguments of your own.

Because A is more engaged, B is less (therefore B is more detached)

Thank you, I selected D and couldn't understand why it was wrong. Missed out on the word "total" If that word wasn't there then perhaps D could have been right. I was thinking perhaps the new people wouldnt be enough if old people stop coming.

Is D wrong because it could still have been an accident even if it wasn't easily obtainable? I thought if it wasn't easily obtainable then it makes it less likely to be a mistake.

I thought the same thing, but upon review I realized that just because it was built after doesn't mean both didn't use scale drawings. B just requires too many assumptions. E also seems to weaken it by suggesting that perhaps their experience was sufficient so they didn't need a drawing.

Thank you for your response.

Q16:

I believe B is wrong because the author of passage A is okay with insider trading (insider trading includes having information and trading on that information before others can do anything about it). I don't remember if that's mentioned in the passage explicitly or implicitly, but it's something I know from the real world. By being fine with insider trading, the author believes it's not the case that information must be available to everyone at the same time. Because author of A doesn't agree, B cannot be the correct answer.

C is right because the author of A considers insider trading to be "superior stock analysis," and the author of B explicitly comments on this issue.

Stimulus says probably and the conclusion in B is definitive. Is that okay?

wow thank you! I didnt even see this

Still a little lost but thank you to all in the comments.

For 17 I chose D because the "vibe" was "better" but now on review I think a reason to eliminate it could be for the word "most". Even if we do agree that they anticipated and rejected an objection (not even sure if that happened), we cannot say that whatever they rejected is the MOST probable. For us to think whatever passages A and B are rejecting is MOST probable, we would've needed explicit or implied words from other people or the author.

Would you suggest doing passages with less questions first or save them for the end? I typically do them first but if I knew this was so hard, perhaps I would've done it after.

How do you even know which happened first and which happened after? Did Joshi get the funding first and then vote (like the conclusion says), or did he vote first and then get funding after (as D says)? Since we have no time frame, we cannot choose A, right?

Is D wrong, in addition to saying "most", because it says either/or. In the stimulus, it says "not only by direct application." Meaning it is by direct application and indirect (jobs etc)

So, to summarize, B is wrong because, although it is descriptively accurate, it is not a flaw in the sense that it is not the main issue in the stimulus. The issue is that the argument assumes important stories aren't covered well because not all stories can be covered well. But to assume it's the important ones rather than some other ones that fall into that category is a flaw (could be the case or could not be, but the assumption is not warranted).

If we didn't have A, would B be the next best thing?

A would also be a necessary assumption right? If education doesn't do all that, then whats the point?

I understand why 16 C is right (it's referring to clinical, not theoretical), but I still don't understand why B is wrong. Is there no support for this in the second paragraph?

Also, could I get a deeper explanation for 21 A?

I think the stimulus was insane but the choices were rather simple.