@ClarkMichael B just doesnt attack the argument at all. Think about the conclusion "This shows that these economists overestimate the degree to which people are motivated by money in their job choices." B talks about an identical job, meaning the only difference is money. So if i didnt care about money, i would take the low paying job. The argument isnt that people dont care about money. If youre able to spot the assumption in the argument, it makes the question easier.

@PhoebeHopp This was super helpful. Its a reminder that indicators groups can be a helpful tool, but a strong understanding of necessary and sufficient (super/sub sets) is key. Thanks!

This is a very difficult question, even though I got it right, it was definitely a guess. Using conditional logic as learned (D) should be eliminated for the same reasons A and B are. Reading the tutor response below, I still don't understand how'd we know to use the Bi- conditional arrow here or how we know "nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans" was a straight definition. The former is nothing but X, doesn't mean every X is the former. If the word "defined" was present it'd be more clear. Just trying to understand what I should take from this question moving forward for others like this. Is "Nothing but" a Bi-conditional indicator? or does it depend on context? #Tutor

@David_Busis Im applying this cycle, but haven't put out any apps just yet... But will have them out by February. Could I add the schools Im planning to apply to?

So is Never officially part of group 4??

@JodiChan no its not correct. No falls into group 4. The translation rule is negate the necessary condition. The right side of the arrow is always the necessary condition. You negated the sufficient. If your answer is not one of the two in the answer key, your argument is not logically equivalent. You unfortunately committed the oldest mistake in the book. But you are still very early in the curriculum and it will get easier! I finished the curriculum and am returning to the basics to solidify my understanding in order to improve on Must be true questions. Its super important you understand these concepts.

@MaxThompson I chose AC (C) for the same reason as the student. The tutor response only addressed AC (A). How does this help? #feedback #tutor

so weird that its being called an excerpt while also being paraphrased, like what?

Returning back here from NA looking for the first time Prescriptive vs Descriptive claims are discussed because I felt like somehow I missed this concept and seems pretty important now. I realize now the written lesson is slightly different from the video. I mostly watch the videos so I missed this introduction. Would be great to have some sort of index/ glossary for review purposes. #Feedback

So do we approach these questions the same as PSA and SA questions?? I changed my answer from B to C just bc I felt like B was intuitive, but C negated I thought canceled the argument. Not sure how to approach this question.

Unclear, like others, on the logic of this question. I chose A at first, but when I thought about it again I took the question very literally. The stimulus is explicit about who should receive the award, and the conclusion drawn also is stating who should, not who is eligible. So if I were to treat this question like a PSA I would look for an answer that triggers the first element, but fail the second. Thats why I changed my answer. If this wasn't a principal question I wouldn't assume there wasn't other things that should justify the award. Idk anymore lol.

Also don't really understand the response "If we know it's true that Penn should not be awarded the commendation, then it must be true either that he didn't save a life or that he didn't exceed expectations or that he wasn't eligible." Doesn't (B) tell us Penn has an exemplary record, and he did not exceed expectations? Doesn't that get us to what we're looking for? Just not understanding how you cant take the contrapostive and get /award--> /exceed or /save.

I can understand how D fails the first condition by just believing the the computer had been typically used. But, I don't see how D fails the second condition when it explicitly says "there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in operation..". Is it not reasonable to assume it would also then contain usable evidence? Although, I did overlook the word legitimate, importing and smuggling are closely related and evidence could be stored on a legit business computer. I also feel like the use of "confiscated" in this context is consistent with no authorization. The laptop wasn't surrendered.

#feedback

@KevinLin Thank you for the clarity!

Science has always been my weakest subject in school, the analytics have told me I do the worst on these type of questions, I may just skip these lol I cant understand the stimulus, the choices, or the explanations.

I was between A and E for this question, and ultimately went with A. I felt like E makes the assumption that the only way to protect domestic workers from secondhand smoke is to prohibit people from smoking in their homes. Maybe the law also mandates the smoking home owner provide special masks for their employees. Its unclear. it is clear, however, that the goal of the law is to protect employees (which include domestic workers) and the intention seems clear, so that is why I chose A.

#feedback #tutor

I think I overthought this question. I was concerned with conflating not uncomfortable (the contrapositive of the 3rd claim) with comfortable so my conditional chain didnt get me to the right answer and I chose C. I now see why C is incorrect, but I mean it still leaves the question, does not uncomfortable equal comfortable? I'd love some 7sage insight. #tutor #feedback

coming back here from logical reasoning. It would be great to have all the review sheets+ short summaries of the lessons all in one place for quick review. I remember most of the material, just needed some reminders of key points without having to rewatch entire videos (even if on 1.7 speed) #feedback

@DaisukeKaga Yes

Highlight feature would be great. pretty sure the classic site had that feature. The new site should just add more features, not take any away :( #feedback

Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback