Anyone else just take it to be true that there was a 3x then get thrown by the answer choices and go back to read the stimulus and see "recorded"?

C is obviously the more correct one, but it's funny - law of small numbers would say it's more likely that there would be substantial variation as a matter of randomness (noise) that mellows out with larger numbers. Causal explanation is key

same! let me know if you want me to make a slack or groupme! :)

anyone else extremely confused by this ?

Love that JY put wp for will prosper as opposed to just prosper. Points to how little mistakes like that can fudge up understanding. i.e. if an animal is presently prospering, if you just put shorthand "prosper", you may be inclined to think it is valid (aka the argument in logically bulletproof) that the being in question is not a panda that moved to "this" part of the rainforest.

But it very well could be that the pandas who moved are prospering now, but in the future will not be, so it is within the realm of possibility that the animal being mentioned in a trick question actually IS the panda

what is the difference between formally equivalent and logically equivalent?

Omg I made a math mistake and knew E seemed wrong but couldn't figure out why. 100+25 = 125 --> 25/125 < 25% versus 25/100 = 25% different proportions of alc in total calories but same number of alcohol calories, therefore the opposite conclusion. TRICK: alcohol is a particular, the actual focus is the calorie diff did not explain the body fat change *equal in both conditions (so some other reason). What we don't have is the why (E has the same prob as A, contrapositive inference of why A is wrong is D why right)