Possible alternative hypothesis.

A causes B.

B causes A.

C causes A and C

No correlation

Strengthen is basically, stimulus: snoring causes abnormalities (A causes B)

Answer is basically B does not cause A.

Is finding the conclusion of the stimulus and then looking for an answer that supports the conclusion a good way to solve RRE questions?

Most pest control experts now advise against their use (Electric bug zappers) and use Birds or insecticides.

Basically, look for Bug Zapper bad and Birds and insectisides are good.

A. If true, does that show why not to use Zapper? No.

B. This shows bug zappers are bad, but does it show why birds and insecticides are good? No

C. This shows zappers are bad, but does it show why Birds and insecticides are good? No.

D. Shows bug zappers are bad and birds and insecticides are good.

E. Claims insecticides are good, but it is someone's claim.

PT:106 S2 Q19

Rule # 1: correctly addressed --> 2 days

Rule#2: +2 days --> Damaged (only applies to correctly addressed mail).

Example: Mail -m-> +3 days.

Since Rule #2: +2 days --> Damaged applies to correctly addressed mail, we should use rule 1.

Rule # 1: correctly addressed --> 2 days

Since most mail is not within 2 days, it means most mail is not correctly addressed.

Is this a good way of thinking?

C.

Joyriding, however, is the more dangerous crime because it physically endangers people, whereas only intellectual property is harmed in the case of computer crimes.

Yolanda does say physical property is more criminal than damage to IP.

D: offering an alternate explanation of the correlation cited.

The correlation cited by the question was that Government services increase, causing community services to decrease.

The editorialist suggested that it's the opposite. They did not give an alternative correlation but offered a counterexample.

I chose D.

Drive recklessly --> Accident.

Premises: Minivans and large sedans have a lower accident rate.

Conclusion: Owning a minivan or a large sedan would lower the accident rate.

They think that owning a different car would lower the rate, but that's just a necessity. It's sufficient (drive recklessly) that can lower the rate.

Luke will become a Jedi if Yoda trains him but not otherwise.

Yoda trains him --> Luke becomes a Jedi.

/Luke becomes a Jedi --> /Yoda trains him.

Is this the correct translation?

If one lives in NYC, then one must either file a city tax return or pay a penalty.

Isnt this a disjunction?

Once we write the conjunction, can we then negate the conjunction?

@Sameer Ahamad I got it!

Its because a it shows that Tom is guaranteed to not be a Jedi or use the force as years of training is needed.

In extraordinary discipline its not clear. It is possible that Tom does have extraordinary discipline but it is possible that he does not.

Why cant Tom possess extraordinary discipline?

Jedi--> Force --> Years of training --> Extraordinary discipline.

Jedi--> Force --> Years of training --> (Tom is here). Extraordinary discipline.

Tom doesnt have years of tranning, but he can possess extraordinary discipline without having years of training.

A B and D can be true.

We "unless" be substituted for "without" to check if the "without" is being bused as an indicator?

To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user. Becoming a Force user requires years of training, which further requires extraordinary discipline. Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.

The conclusion has the Group 3 indicator word. What do we do with the translation rules then?

Since for the solution J --> F --> T --> D is J -->D we did not use the Group 3 translation. It just mapped it out.

@Aaron Thanks!!

Q3.

Policy of freedom of speech --> / The government acts irrationally.

The government acts irrationally -->/ Policy of freedom of speech.

Does this also make sense?

Without physical exercise.

Would this not mean /PE.

When negating it /PE --> //PE --> PE

Isnt inclusive or the same as exclusive or?

If take one or the other.

Is it that in inclusive it can be A and not B or A and B. In exclusive is just A or B, cant have both.

Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.

1. If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will not occur.

2. If blackouts won't occur, then the heat wave abates.

They are all saying the same thing, right?

In the Kumar example, if we made circles, can it just be one circle on top of the other?

Since cited late only if they arrive after +5 minutes. This means there is no other reason to be cited late. They cant get cited for being late for anything other reason except for arriving after +5 mins.

"The only Jedi are the ones who can use the force".

Cant you use the force without being a Jedi.

QS --> SIT

They did not SIT.

/SIT --> /QS.

P/SIT.

Conclusion: /QS.

Ninja - Turtle.

Can you switch the circles? Or draw the circles on top of one another? Since its not saying "Some turtles are ninjas".

I would say its comparing different cultivars of corn.

Question 4.

Object clause.

"it is unable to lend its printed books and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition."

What would be the Subject and Predicate?

Subject: Printed books? Library?

Predicate: unable? display?

@Katiesue14 Yes, but I guess wouldnt adding "always" make the argument stronger that it is now? maybe not as strong as the tiger argument but closer to it.

Even by adding salmon its sill not confined that Mr Fat Cat did it.