@Rgschrader2 wait, I totally messed up the part about B lol, I was going from memory. 

B opens the door to criticism on the second assumption first and foremost, but implicitly also the first. 

@danielleiebradley834 C is descriptively inaccurate. The stim does not discuss an absence of evidence in either the premise or the conclusion. As such, it cannot be one of two concepts that get confused, which is what C says.

If the stim said: "I held a town hall where my constituents could voice opposition to my corporate tax cuts bill and no one showed up. Therefore my constituents support this bill."

Then C would be the right answer.

You're absolutely right that the legislator is conflating two different opinions, but not that we should accept it, for that IS the flaw.

While B doesn't call this out in language we would use if having a normal conversation, it DOES address the flaw. It his both hyper-specific and generous towards the legislator's "confusion." For the legislator's argument to be valid, constituents would have had to understand the question on the poll to mean "do you favor high taxes for corporations" AND have the assumption granted that those holding this opinion think current corporate income tax IS high. Note, B still relies on this assumption. But, B opens up an opportunity for criticism by addressing the first assumption: that the question on the poll was understood by all constituents to mean "do you favor high taxes on corporate income."

@amartino123139 same. recognized the first sentence as conclusion, realized i could use rule/exception framework with "unless," where:

A => B, Expt: C

becomes

/C & A => B

so then was able to narrow the actual conclusion to DetermineExistence by kicking /C and A into the premises and guess what, D was THE ONLY answer that addressed determining the existence of aliens. I didn't do any formal logic beyond that.

In my notes, I keep finding myself writing "Anchor self to stim" and "Anchor self to Conclusion" and it's really helped with these.

I did not properly translate the stim into lawgic (I made other errors beyond not recognizing the biconditional) and spent way too long bouncing between A and B. However, I was able to identify GoingAbove&Beyond as one of the sufficient conditions and realized that Penn failing that would give me no info about the necessary condition ShouldAward, and as such rule out B.

PHEW.

@J.Y.Ping Oh sweeet, thanks for the good news :)

The new site looks and feels great! Just some really minor, nitpicky feedback:

It would be really cool to be able to edit notes we've taken on specific questions instead of creating new notes on the same question. Sometimes I like to jot down thoughts during blind review. Then of course I like to do wrong answer journal. Finally, sometimes I add notes after watching the explanation. I get that I can do all of that with the current functionality, but sometimes I just want to edit the note, like if I want to correct a typo or other error. Simply adding a new note to the same question just isn't the same. I'd rather my notes feel like a document than a text conversation. Is this functionality that could be added at some point, even if largely cosmetic? I appreciated that functionality in 7sage classic :)

In that same vein, can the little button that inserts the Wrong Answer Journal template be brought back? That was a nice feature to have.

Finally, but completely unrelated, I'd love to be able to log in with a password that can be saved in my browser's password manager, especially when the new site is so quick to sign me out after a period of inactivity compared to the old. I understand emailed link is more secure, but it's also kind of a buzzkill lol.