please share how. Are you writing out the problem in formal logic and the answer choices in formal logic? I'm having the hardest time getting me time down on these ?s, I don't even have a proposed approach for getting my time down.

Can someone please please give me tips on how to get through these fast? I'm getting them right but it's only when I physically write down the translation and I'm usually 1-2 minutes over time.

anyone else today years old finding out what tantamount means

Don't give up! I was frequently getting the "you try" problems wrong and little by little I was getting them more correct... 5/5 on these all under time! You got this!

anyone else have this question automatically click? I've been STRUGGLING with SA ?s but flying through the NA ?s.... answered this 35 seconds faster than target! We can do this!!!

youre not alone, I was flying through PSAs and these are just not sticking.

humbled.

Wait I've been understanding these problems until right now I think I'm just having a brain blank but could someone explain why B is wrong?

I understand these chains:

P1: Classroom edu /EFF → /SP → /SI

P2: Classroom edu /EFF → TOr+a

But then for B, I thought it was right when it says /TOr+a → EFF which is the contrapositive of P2?

Hi! Both premises in the archeology question had to do with archeology. So it makes sense that the correct answer choice would have to do with archeology when forming the bridge between premise and conclusion.

For this question, the premises are about T and ignorance that lead to the conclusion about preventability, so it's just categorically different from the archeology problem since it's a bit more nuanced. In the answer choice you're referring to that says "only", B is prescribing this absolute, unyielding, super general rule (they should be held responsible ONLY for X) derived from a stimulus that should apply to just one scenario (they should be held responsible for T because it was preventable).

The way I ruled B out super fast and other answers like it is that almost always the right answer will never be that broad and absolute, I am always weary of the answers that use "only" or "always" because usually the question simply doesn't give enough info to make a rule that strong.

For me the way I understood it is because there needs to be a connection between the premises about penalties to the conclusion about equal harm, like how do those two things connect? A connects them.

I DID THIS TOO.

It's to the far right of the bar that says "Review Results" - it should say "Explanation" and you click the circle corresponding next to the question, which will take you to the video.

#help #feedback

I understood every other example except 12.

High school teachers who teach AP courses will only tutor students they believe to be in danger of failing and they believe that only students who missed Monday’s class are in danger of failing.

I parsed it to the following:

domain: HS teachers who teach AP courses

1. Teachers will only tutor students in danger of failing.

2. Only students who missed Monday’s class are in danger of failing.

Following G2 rules, doesn't the predicate become the necessary condition? As in the phrase after "only" comes after the arrow?

Like I remember from a previous drill it was "Democracy can exist only if citizens participate in government." and the translation was "demo exists --> participate" - the thing after "only" came after the arrow.

So for 12, why wouldn't it be:

1. danger failing --> tutor *(this is the one I do not understand)

2. danger failing --> missed m (I know this one is correct)

Instead the correct answer is:

tutor --> danger failing

danger failing --> missed M

tutor --> danger failing --> missed m

Hi! If you break down the problem into the translation symbols, the last line of logic can only read right from the stimulus the problem gives. If you look below it will make more sense:

A society begins to decline only when its politicians become corrupt. If any member of society's elite is corrupted, revolution will follow. No one in Qarth is corrupt.

decline --> corrupt

/corrupt --> /decline

corrupt --> revolution

/revolution --> /corrupt

q/Corrupt

/revolution --> /corrupt --> /decline

RIGHT HERE, I realized that you can ONLY conclude what is to the RIGHT of the given stimulus (q/Corrupt). So if all we have to work with is /corrupt, we can only conclude what is to the right of /corrupt, which is /decline.

q/Decline

I hope this makes sense!

Ok so I did this page of exercises yesterday and I didn't understand it all. Today, I went back to the Skill Builders for Translations of Groups 1-4 and really took the time to understand the rules of each indicator. This is how I broke down the problem:

Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb. If he doesn't kill Arya, he cannot kill Robb. He cannot kill both Arya and Sansa. If he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon. Joffrey kills Robb.

/B --> R

/R --> B

/A --> /R

R --> A

A --> /S

S --> /A

/R --> J

/J --> R

jR

/B --> R --> A --> /S

/J --> R --> A --> /S

RIGHT HERE, I realized that you can ONLY conclude what is to the right of the given stimulus (jR). So if all we have to work with is R, we can only conclude what is to the right of R, which is A and /S.

jA

j/S

Once I got the hang of it, it becomes really obvious! Don't worry, once it "clicks" you'll be solving them super fast :)

I don't think this is a sure-fire way to tell, but I got almost all of them right by thinking of it this way: There are only a couple words in the sentence that can't be stacked into each other, like there are only a couple words in the sentence that are the roots of the context/fluff words.

For 17.2 "The normal protocol for deciding if a newly proposed law should be implemented is to weigh its social benefits against its economic drawbacks", the parts about "normal" and "for deciding blah blah blah" all fit into "protocol", just as "its social benefits against economic drawbacks" is used to enhance weigh. Nothing in that second part after "weigh" can stand 1. alone as a noun or 2. is needed for other words to fit inside it, which is what an object does.

I don't know if that makes sense?

Like for 13.3 "A group of architects who specialize in modern designs are presenting their projects."

The words after "group" are used to contextualize the word. That contextualization comes to a stop with the verb "presenting", which does not fit into "group". But there is another stop with "projects" since it does not fit into "presenting", since "projects" is not used to contextualize/describe the verb of "presenting."

Maybe I confused you more, so sorry! But that's how my brain has been working them out.