Getting this one right boosted the confidence I needed

following! also have this question.#feedback

The reason I got this wrong is because I confused the conclusion. I thought the first sentence was the argument. How can I differentiate this next time?

Can someone explain how the negation of "/explain H and C -> /explain basics" translates to "/explain H and C AND explain basics"? Wouldn't the contrapositive just go back to the original answer? #feedback

Common trend I've noticed;

PSAr Question stems usually use "following principles" in their question stems. For example:

1. Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?

2. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the consumer advocate's argumentation?

PSAa Question stems usually use "principles stated" in their questions stem. For example:

1. The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

2. The principles stated by the lawyer most strongly support which one of the following judgments?

Lastly, principle questions usually either use the word "illustrates" or "generalization" in their stems.

1. Which one of the following principles is best illustrated by the study described above?

2. The situation described above most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?

3. Which one of the following generalizations is most clearly illustrated by the passage?

Being able to pick up on these key words can hopefully help in identifying what type of question you're working with. Hope this helps!

I need to learn to trust my gut more. I chose C originally but then BR E.

I chose E first but then changed to C on BR ): Why do you think I did this? Also, how can I detect when something is context or premise?

I had originally chose E, but I second-guessed myself and switched to D ):

I think another way you could probably see how B wouldn't weaken the argument is because B just restates what is already said in the argument. In the author's support, he mentions that hiccups were experienced by many (so it accounts that not all had those symptoms) victims of the Ebola virus which is what B is saying. B says that not all victims of Ebola had hiccups. Hope this logic helps!

Same thing happened to me! If I would have paid attention to the "except" I could have seen why B is the correct answer. B just restates what is already said in the argument since it mentions that hiccups were experienced by many (so it accounts that not all had those symptoms) victims of the Ebola virus, which is what B just restates by saying that not all victims of Ebola had hiccups.

21st!

Can you share? RRE are by far the only questions that I do not get AT ALL.

Okay, so I was so confused at first but after further reviewing, I'm going to share my thought process behind this in hopes it helps others confused.

Based on the argument, the author concludes by saying that snoring is the CAUSE for damage in throats. The premises talks about the correlation between snoring and abnormalities. So, like many of you (hopefully), I viewed that as saying that abnormalities could also be the reasoning behind the damage in throats because of the correlation between abnormalities and snoring. However, going back to the conclusion, we find that the correlation in this argument is essentially irrelevant because the author saying SNORING is the [only] CAUSE for damage.

Therefore, (E), strengthens our argument because what it does is eliminates our alternative explanation we could have had that the abnormalities are the cause of snoring. By removing the possibility that the abnormalities cause snoring, (E) strengthens the conclusion that snoring is the cause of the damage in throats.

Hope this explanation helps!

I think what has helped me, more specifically with this question, is remembering that I am looking for an alternative hypothesis for my phenomenon. I am taking everything in my phenomenon to be true, so when I read the answer choices, I think "Okay, considering my phenomenon, what else could I hypothesize that my phenomenon will conclude/explain that isn't my original hypothesis."

For example, the original hypothesis says the reason for hiring employees with bus tour experience is because they're trying to expand their consumer base by attracting NEW consumers. Now, after reviewing all the possible answer choices that are supposed to be true, what else could explain the reasoning for hiring employees with bus tour experiences? Could it be that they're being advised to provide new services and products to their current customers (which is what E says)? The answer is yes, that could very must be true. Overall, remembering that you are looking for alternative hypotheses that explain your phenomenon is what has helped me.

I hope this helped--I'm a bit bad at explaining lol, but let me know if I can explain it differently. Good luck!

So whereas in MC, MSS, PAI, MBT, where are relying purely on what we are given and not making assumptions, in RRE we are required to make assumptions? I think this is what's confusing me more because I trained my brain to only use the information given and not let my biases/assumptions interfere with the questions but now I have to? Someone please explain how I can get better with this section.

Please tell me I am not the only one struggling with this section of questions. I feel like I did better on MC, MSS, PAI, and MBT, but this section.....

It was in the spectrum of support! The center is "merely consistent with," which could mean it could be true or could be false. Often times, it could be that the answer has nothing to do with the argument at all, which puts it in that "merely consistent" side of the spectrum (Center). The far right is "Contradiction," which means anti-supported.

Honestly, I used chat to help explain it in more details and it's explanation worked. Hope this helps:

Original Statement:

"Only birds migrate south in winter. The monarch butterfly is not a bird. Therefore, the monarch butterfly does not migrate south in winter."

Analysis:

Understanding "Only" in Logical Terms:

The phrase "Only birds migrate south in winter" can be interpreted as: If something migrates south in winter, then it must be a bird.

In formal logic, this is expressed as:

Migration South → Bird

In Lawgic terms: M → B

Contrapositive Form:

The contrapositive of M → B is:

If not a bird, then does not migrate south.

In Lawgic terms: /B → /M

Statement Breakdown:

Premise 1: Only birds migrate south in winter.

This is translated as: M → B (If it migrates south, then it is a bird).

Premise 2: The monarch butterfly is not a bird.

This is: /B (Not a bird).

Conclusion: The monarch butterfly does not migrate south in winter.

This is: /M (Does not migrate south).

Logic Flow:

From Premise 1 (M → B), we know that migrating south implies being a bird.

If something is not a bird (/B), it cannot migrate south (/M).

Thus, from /B (not a bird), we conclude /M (does not migrate south).

Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity:

Premise Misinterpretation: If you confuse sufficiency with necessity, you might wrongly translate "Only birds migrate south" as: Birds → Migration South.

This misinterpretation would incorrectly suggest that being a bird is sufficient for migrating south, rather than understanding that migration south implies being a bird (which is the correct interpretation).

Correct Translation:

Correctly translating "Only birds migrate south" means understanding that being a bird is a necessary condition for migrating south. Thus, if something is not a bird, it cannot migrate south.

Summary:

Correct Logic: M → B (Migration South → Bird) and /B → /M (Not a Bird → Does Not Migrate South)

Incorrect Logic (Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity): Birds → Migration South, which misrepresents the logical relationship.

So for 10, would you say that it's okay to translate to;

resident hp-coffee--m -> 5mins+

Manifesting this for us both!

Yes please

For number two, is it okay if I viewed it as;

Rule: NC -> /A

Exception: +4weeks

Therefore, I was able to conclude that if there are no other cats there waiting for longer than four weeks, then Mittens is available.

Not sure if my explanation made sense, but I was able to get the same result. #feedback

UPDATE: I realized that "if" indicates that +4weeks should be my sufficient to /available.

15) We conclude that Qarth will not decline. Why can we not conclude that revolution will not follow?

For 13, we previously did I -> M -> C. We could chain the three together, especially since Mixed was used for both Increasing and led to cast. Why is it that they're seperated here?

Yes because it asserts that Senator Amidala did indeed deliver her speech, which, according to the first premise, leads to the vote not passing.