Yes - trying to breakdown each sentence and making a short summary after each paragraph

I would use letters from the beginning to identify different parts: A, B, C. Then look for key structures in the stimulus I need in the answer choice. For example here we have...

if A then B or C. C is not an option. Thus B. --- Getting this slogan faster helps reduce the time and the length to go through answers.

A = winner

B = $$ prize

C = familiar prize

The stimulus states that both prizes are NOT familiar. So, after a quick scan of the answer choices, I need three values and one to be eliminated.

D is the only one to replicate that structure: It has A, B, and C. eliminates C. Concludes B.

Yea?

Answer choice A: The proposed explanation for the decline in applications applies in this case

Negated: The proposed explanation for the decline in applications DOES NOT applies in this case.

In the stimulus the only way we arrive at the conclusion to rise the price of education is by thoughts of parents. If this no longer applies then there is no reason to believe the conclusion. So it is necessary to know the explanation applies. If you negate the other answer choices you see they do not damage the stimulus.

Answer Choice D: There is no additional explanation.

Negated Choice D: There is an additional explanation.

If the negated was true, it does not mean the conclusion in the stimulus does not work. This is necessary question. And with negated D the conclusion still works. It could be possible that the school looks ugly which disrupts parents from wanting their kids to attend. This additional explanation may weaken the conclusion but is not necessary. The conclusion still remains standing from the premises and explanation. It is necessary to have a relevant explanation or the conclusion crumbles.

convincing :0

negation test really helped me be solid here bc if the explanation did not apply the argument would collapse

Think of suff assum as making the conclusion in the stimulus 100% true with an answer choice. Meaning there are no loopholes in the conclusion when answered correctly.

For Nec Assum think of think of making it possible for the conclusion to be true with the correct answer choice. The answer choice makes it the conclusion possible.

Example: Sam is a cat. Therefore, Sam is fluffy.

Sufficient Assum. Cats are fluffy

This makes the conclusion 100% true

Necessary Assum. Cats can be fluffy.

This makes the conclusion possible

The last two questions got me as well because I messed up the organization. I realized once I find the conclusion I am not bumping up the sufficient condition. To better my conditional logic, I used flashcards with the rules and it really helped me. I would not say its perfect but it's way better than before.

https://quizlet.com/761538907/conditional-indicators-flash-cards/?x=1jqt

A is eliminating other possible explanations

"The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological."

So when deciding whether to remove the mosaics we should only consider the archaeologists points. This strengthens and bridges the gap in the argument. For example image that a politician differed in viewpoint about keeping the mosaic in the site. By having answer choice a the argument does not consider the politician's view.

Could this not be considered a necessary assumption or sufficient assumption question?

Got it on the Blind Review :0

AAAAHHHHH - that is how I felt doing this one

same I switched to unlimited time now because I would rather get them right then worry about time right now

I potentially thought I was getting trapped by the all but then I referred to the question stem which states "most supports" so that I could choose C more confidently. I would not say that universal and all are referential to the same idea. Universal is referencing storytelling. "All" is referring concerns.

Should I memorize this or work on being familiar with the language surrounding these arguments?

How should I be learning this concept?

The negation of the intersections between parrots and clever is “some.” If we are looking for something not in the “some” range then all that is left is 0%

Some is 1-100% VS negation 0%

This is my understanding of the concepts

Whereas for "all" negation

we go from all which is 100% to the negation which can include 0-99%

When there is an indicator from group 3 and group 4 just pick one group and use that translation rule. You do not need to do it twice.

Using Group 3

No myths would have been written down unless they contained truths that people wanted subsequent

/ they contained truths that people wanted subsequent -> no myths would have been written down

/truth -> /WD

Using Group 4

No myths would have been written down unless they contained truths that people wanted subsequent

[/ no] myths would have been written down-> they contained truths that people wanted subsequent

double negative so they cancel out

WD ->truth

Both methods do the same thing and lead to the contrapositive of each other!

I am still confused about how we know the conclusion? #help #feedback

I had the same question because D seems stronger than C. C is relying on an assumption that a work of art can be a novel and poem; whereas, in D is explicit in the stimulus - Looking back at it D can be eliminated because you have to make the assumption there is nonartistic poetry. In the first premise it states that poetry is "any work of art"