The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.

I have yet to see a clear distinction/explanation between and 'necessary assumption' and a 'necessary condition' (right side of logic arrow). They seem to be used without a clarification on the differences in meaning or application. There is a little bit of confusion here. NA seem to be different in the use of analyzing the argument vs NC are clearly defined as the right side of the logic arrow.

Practice conditional logic, but don't waste time drawing it out in the test. Don't lean on your intuition but don't waste too much time.

@destinyMejia Except when we the answers require us to make reasonable assumptions?

@broenos most people would give up early if you put this at the beginning.

pay wall

page not found

These explanations make a large amount of assumptions

how is a bird feeder more dangerous than in the wild??

A reasonable assumption would be that an actor would have a copy of hamlet.

can we have some deeper explanation as to why AC A is correct?

@Kevin Lin Looking back, I think that reading ' will have CONTINUED to increase' in AC A indicated to me that the profitability decrease was an effect or right side of lawgic arrow statement. The past tense of the the word read to me that since a thing has happened, another thing was the result. I see how AC C is the correct answer, but the explanation was the same reasoning that I used to conclude the AC A.

6MO of training is not years of training. Unclear why Tom would also not be ED. Argument is valid but untruthful.

@kaleighh.04 you missed a lesson i think

@apple you could have reversed that logic and been valid and also incorrect.

Can someone clarify why #3 has 'the only' as a group 1 word. According to the lessons, 'only' only appears in group 2.

so the kumar example is logically invalid and untruthful but LAWGICly valid

@rjon27 did not help

his explanation for C makes AC A work.

@Nhubria Chikaka Honestly the most helpful tool is just asking why to each individual part. If you can find and answer to the Why then you have the conclusion.

@7Sage Tutor AC D makes a large jump to assuming that the rate of dissolution is the conclusion. There is no indication that the 'rate' is some aspect of the conclusion. The stimulus only states that they are found together not that they have the same rate let alone causes the other rate to increase.

Can someone please provide better reasoning why D is wrong. The video is too dismissive.

@Conner Kline There is also no guarantee that the other member of the council would have given 'consent'. There is nothing indicating that they would have consented to allowing the information to be released. How can this be properly inferred?

@HimajaReddy This does not explain the discrepancy in answer B.

@Lowri Thomas I see this reasoning, but I do not see how this takes into account the 'difficulty' of domestication.