Does answer choice C confuse sufficiency with necessity? In other words, that statement reads the arrow backwards, correct?

I arrived at the answer to the monarch passage using different lawgic. Rather than specify membership in a set, I communicated relationships through conditionals. I wrote Monarch→/bird for the second premise and monarch→/migrate south for the conclusion. I figured out the argument was invalid because I determined /Monarch←s→ migrate south, and because some does not imply all, I deemed the argument invalid.

My two questions are: 1) Is this a valid way to determine the validity of the conclusion 2) does anybody have any good strategies for identifying membership in sets versus conditional relationships?

#feedback So, to everyone who is confused about "all other things being equal", I get it. It was the sole reason I switched my answer from D to A while drilling. I understood that D implied that there would have to be another variable impacting both pet ownership and happiness, but felt this contention was anti-supported by "all other things being equal". What has helped my understanding that D is the correct answer is the presumption that all answers in weakening questions are true. If you look at the answer choices with this in mind, then the whole "all other things being equal" claim becomes irrelevant. D most weakens the argument and how its implied meaning interacts with the claim "all other things being equal" is a Pandora's box that you don't necessarily need to open because D already carries the presumption of being true. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

TBH, I don't see why we are translating few into the most statement when we could easily translate it into a some statement (C←s→/F). Doing so makes C way more identifiable, and according to the lessons, this is a valid translation. Not saying you can't use the most statement, but it just seems a little unnecessary considering none of the ACs have a most statement in the second premise. #feedback

Could you also do negation tests on answers to see if they are correct/incorrect? For example, negating E would translate the AC into saying that the business interests would not be harmed by the freeway's construction. This negation makes AC E weaken the conclusion, and therefore, you know that AC E in its regular, non-negated form is incorrect. I know this seems completely backward, especially if you can read AC E as it is and immediately understand that it doesn't weaken the conclusion. But I've used this method for some more complex questions, and it has helped me become more confident in my answers.

#feedback Just curious, what would the stimulus have to say for D to be correct?

I really enjoyed the LR curriculum. It truly made me feel so much more comfortable on my last PT. Every question on the PT felt, at the very least, somewhat familiar, and I never felt like I was scrambling to figure out how to approach a question.

#feedback Super tough one but a great one to learn from. While doing the question, I kept referring to the question stem because I kept thinking, "This logic is flawed; why is this not a PF question." Regardless of getting it wrong, it's good to know that parallel reasoning questions can contain flawed reasoning. It's been a while since doing the curriculum, so I don't remember if there's a lesson on this, but if not, it might be a good idea to put a note or lesson somewhere that touches on the idea that Parallels don't have to have valid reasoning.

#feedback Can you translate the negation of the word "rarely" (not rarely) to "frequently"?

#feedback I think the key to this question is "knowingly harm" vs "eventually/intend harm." I was stuck between D and E, and I chose D because it was more predictive and uncertain. I think it doesn't matter whether harm takes place, but rather if a person believes they will receive harm (and isn't Deadpool or Billy Butcher). I know this sounds super nitpicky, and it's reasonable to think knowingly would imply belief. But I figured that given the closeness of D and E, it was ok to be more scrutinous. Curious if this is a reasonable approach or if I got a little lucky.

I determined D was wrong because the logic of the argument makes trespassing the condition for damage. Regardless of the distinctions between know and reasonably expect, I threw out the answer because the second premise stated that the individual had to reasonably expect damage, not trespassing that would be sufficient for people causing damage. While it could be assumed that she could have expected/known that damage could occur (as a result of expecting trespassing and thus knowing damage results from trespassing), I felt a lot more comfortable with A, given the direct relationship between the expectations and damage. Is this a correct way of discerning this answer?

Tbh, I feel like for answer choice D, we've made crazier assumptions for right answers on past problems than confiscation not meaning without permission. I figured out D wasn't the answer (besides the lack of reasonable suspicion that evidence was on the computer) because there was no mention of any legal proceeding or a trial/lawsuit against the smuggler.

Another reason why I thought A was wrong was because of the word "precise." Let's say the scientists used a rough estimate instead and found that the sandstone dated 100 million years before the existence of multicellular animal life. This would still support the conclusion. My main point: the scientist could have had the most exact date or the least exact date and come to the same conclusion.