Does anyone know if there is a a general word count that we should be aiming for with the new structure? I know quality above quantity is important, but I want to know the general minimum/if there is a maximum.

I got this one right on blind review by simplifying it a ton and now it makes perfect sense to me. Here is my explanation, if it helps anyone:

Stimulus sentence 1: "People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good."

- Simplified, without the negatives: People's intentions must be more good than bad.

Stimulus sentence 2: "Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members."

- Simplified: If we hold the belief that people's intentions are more bad than good, we would stop trusting each other and no society can survive when we don't trust each other.

- For this simplification, I replaced the otherwise with the opposite statement to make it more straightforward. Then I replaced the rest of the sentence with easier to understand language.

- (Just a note, I do recognize that this may not be 100% accurate to the idea of the stimulus since I have changed the language, but it was close enough for me to understand the correct answer.)

Answer: Answer A: " It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious consequences."

- Simplified: The conclusion that people's intentions must be more good than bad to avoid the negative consequences of the opposite belief fails to consider that there could still be negative results from believing that people's intentions must be more good than bad.

- This was a long simplification, yes, but it helps pin down the language to my understanding of the stimulus. The stimulus is basically saying, "We need to believe people are good. If we don't, all these bad things will happen. So basically, if we believe that people are good, those bad things won't happen." So Answer A is critiquing this saying, "Just because we believe that people are good does not mean that those bad things will not happen anyway." It uses the words "a true belief can have deleterious consequences." The true belief, in this case, is that "people can be more good than bad." This true belief can still have negative consequences anyways, even if the stimulus seems to argue that we must have this belief so those bad things won't happen.

To build on what you said about finding another explanation, you can also click on the explanation button in the review results section of the "you try" exercises. This is the old, shorter explanation video, but I sometimes find them to be more helpful since they can be more straightforward. Just an extra tip if you are not aware from someone who is also struggling with this question type.

So frustrating when you choose an answer knowing its wrong because you think there is no better answer. I knew the exact correct reason A was wrong but chose it anyway because I had ruled out every other answer smh

I feel like the explanations of how to do these problems are not helpful under time pressure. While I can get the answer through mapping the logic out as explained in the videos, I cannot do this for each question if I want to finish within time. It would be really helpful to have some lessons at least devoted in part to explaining how to find the answer to these types of questions faster. #feedback

I also didn't choose this answer for this question for the same reason. But then I realized that I was forgetting the rules of this question type. With this question type, we can basically assume that the answer choice is true. So this helps confirm the conclusion. We do not need to remove the answer choice because the language is too strong because we are not poking holes in the answer choice itself. We don't need to say, for example, that A cannot be true since it is not supported by the stimulus. This question type wants the answer to support the stimulus, not the stimulus support the answer. So the strong, absolute language in answer A is a good thing. It confirms the conclusion stated in the stimulus completely.

I think we are mainly being taught to do this as a practice exercise. If you are trying to anticipate the answer when practicing, then you are actively thinking about the stimulus, assumptions, and the patterns that answers usually follow. So good for practice, impractical during timed test taking.

I am tearing up for Jocko : (

I believe it is because the stimulus says the number of tornados recorded increased. Just because more are being recorded does not mean that more are happening.

As for your second question, I believe that anything that impacts the number of tornadoes would be a climatic factor. I am not fully certain of that, but I would assume it comes down to semantics at that point. What is a climatic factor? Something that impacts the climate.

I assume the answer is practice. If we can get to the point where mapping quickly is second nature to us, we can just quickly map it (like 20-30 seconds) and then read the answers quickly. The moment something does not fit the rules, we cross it off and move on.

I was wondering this as well. I knew this was the correct answer to start but wanted to check the rest in case I missed something. Should we keep doing POE if we find the answer? #help

I think it would be useful to make all of these lessons also a You Try Drill. We would probably benefit more by attempting it ourselves to see if we can use the correct logic and familiarize ourselves with the question before we watch the lesson. #feedback

It does not mention the doubling of the number of microchips themselves. It says the doubling of transistors and a doubling of cost of new microchips, which is stated. The number of transistors on new microchips has been doubling. With every doubling, the speed doubles. When the speed doubles, the cost goes up. # of transistors doubles-> speed doubles -> cost goes up. The answer does not mention the number of microchips, but instead the number of transistors. The cost goes up at the same time as the doubling of transistors on the new microchips, so D is correct.

This is not quite correct. It's the other way around.

Here is the argument: An engaging plot will guarantee a novel's commercial success.

This basically says, if you have an engaging plot, you will have commercial success. A→B. You seem to be switching the wording of the sentence around to say "A novel's commercial success will guarantee an engaging plot" which is not the sentence.

In the actual sentence, A (engaging plot) is sufficient and B (commercial success) is necessary. You seem to be using the word "necessary" here incorrectly. A is sufficient for B, not necessary. So basically, knowing that a novel has an "engaging plot" is SUFFICIENT to know that it will have "commercial success."

Let's look at the reworded sentence: A novel's commercial success is guaranteed by an engaging plot.

Once again, this sentence is telling us that a novel will succeed commercially if it has an engaging plot. This does not mean that every novel that has commercial success has an engaging plot. It just means that the engaging plot itself will lead to the novel's commercial success. So once again, A (engaging plot) is sufficient to know that B (commercial success) of the novel will happen. A (engaging plot) guarantees B (commercial success). But B (commercial success) DOES NOT guarantee A (that the novel has an engaging plot).