My mapping went:

C -> /T -> /P

P

---

/H

So I had to contrapose C -> /T -> /P to P -> T -> /C and plug in /H at the end of the chain

then I had to contrapose back to H-> C -> /T -> /P to find the answer.

JY's mapping was so much simpler since he mapped out the last sentence to H -> /P

I chose C because although the profit was unexpected, it was often the case that these books of merit turned a profit. That means that the publishers could safely assume that even though not all of the merit books would turn a profit, some would turn a sizable profit, enough to cover for the losses of the ones that did not turn a profit. I'm having a hard time changing my mind on this. #help

I was told not to even open my mouth even if I'm not making any sounds.

X caused Y but Y can't be used to prove Z, so X can't be attributed to Z

Asteroid caused fires/climate change but fires and climate change can't be used to prove triceratops extinction, so asteroids can't be attributed to triceratops extinction

Flooding caused damage to furnace/short in electrical system but these things can't be used to prove the fire, so we cannot claim the flooding caused the fire

Efficiency vs Non-efficiency

There can be 1 million extreme insomniacs in the world and 900,000 of them would be drinking large amounts of coffee

There can be 1 billion people in the world that drink large amounts of coffee but from the evidence we cannot conclude 900 million are extreme insomniacs

The evidence (90% of extreme insomniacs drink lots of coffee) does not shed light on the number of people who are extreme insomniacs within the # of people who drink large amounts of coffee

If the above hypothetical numbers are true, 900k in a billion would be a poor probability and the argument would be very off

Still seems like (solving a problem =/= not malicious) is an assumption we have to make...just going to hope questions like these stays in 1998

One trend of advice I see a lot is that setting a timeline for yourself with a X score is unproductive which is kind of counterintuitive. For some, this test can be a sprint, but for many, it really is a marathon. If you have a X score in mind and you have all the right reasons to strive for that score, just keep grinding until you hit that in a real test and abandon all time pressure.

Completely missed that the conclusion is a comparative statement during the timed exam. Brain just glossed over the words, didn't see a 'than', and just didn't make the connection the conclusion is comparing two things.

The commentator's point seem to imply Winslow is wrong because he gets the two sides and their political orthodoxy level mixed up, but upon further reading, Winslow is merely stating almost like an observation...tricky as hell

Skipped this during PT and not sorry for it.

P: Individuals are responsible for what is under their control, but these emotions are not under their control, meaning Individuals are not responsible for these emotions.

C: Individuals are not morally blameworthy for these emotions

connecting the dots: If individuals are not responsible for these emotions, individuals are not morally blameworthy for these emotions

Answer choice went with the contrapositive: If individual is morally blameworthy, that individual is responsible

The inference to pick up on was that Salvador implicitly states the antique and new ivory markets are dependent while Roxanne explicitly states the markets are independent.

Roxanne would disagree with any supply/demand connections between the two markets while Salvador would agree cutting demand for antique market would alleviate demand for new market.