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

I like this! To put a finer point on the explanation, et's even take the false dichotomy as true spend vs. save. the argument structure takes it as a given that if A happens (spending down) then B will happen (savings up). However, D goes too far and implied that one of those two phenomenon HAS to happen in response to the closure. That's too far -- people can just not change, like OP said.

This is a great explanation! As a rule, it makes sense to care more about the overall funding (big picture) than the breakdown. So like if employee funding makes up only 20% of the budget, and then it outpaces inflation so much that it is 40% of the budget, that could just constitute a shifting of proportions (let's say in the past, less ingenuity was required, and now we rely more on highly skilled, highly paid workers to run more efficient and thereby less expensive preservation projects in the LR).

B almost has us assume that those salary increases for the requisite amount of workers never/cannot happen (there's got to be a reduction in workforce) but that is too far a leap from the present circumstance. Also, if I was the author, I would def mention cuts to workforce if that's the arg I wanted to make. But I didn't I mentioned 3-6x og funding (proportions alone). Far better assumption (similar to non-profits requesting more money) to point out that the funding was woefully inadequate to start and is now just inadequate

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?

I almost think of it as a linking premise, which provides support for both the major premise "it's not sustainable LT" and support for the main conclusion "proposed change in action "stop producing food waste and shut down. The sustainability of the strat is just a statement of fact used in furtherance of the main conclusion. At the same time, without that major premise, the conclusion would still be adequately supported by the second premise. 1st premise is weak without the second, but the second is not weakened without the 1st. Thus, it feels more like a way to link from the background into the main argument (grabbing reader's attention).

I think of most strongly supported questions for this one. Even though the author did a shit job of explicitly stating their conclusion, there is a conclusion heavily implied in there (there is still stuff to learn about wheat) evidence being that scientists just recently discovered something new

Ngl the first sentence seemed more like background/context to me

I think JY is pointing to the fact that these are parallel statements that both assume the same type of causality. "before x event" y happened, is the same as, y stopped happening "after x event" A --> B, /B --> /A. If the statement had said because (a causation word), it could have been an argument

#help exact same question. is it basically that a nucleomorph is a structure that indicates endosymbiosis occurred, as opposed to a separable organism from the choro... plant itself?

I think you were okay to get tunnel vision! But the best way for me is:

a.) understand WHY the author is using the word by looking at the passages structure (if you get tunnel vision, use it to narrow in on the conclusion as opposed to the premise for MSS)

b.) frame the premise conclusion relationship in the contrapositive (as opposed to more black and white thinking

a.) Passage structure:

Sentence 1 (S1): Background (what is plowing)

S2: premises: brief exposure to sunlight + priming with darkness with winter + stimulated receptors germinate (now its premise because so what if they germinate?) no tension at all yet

S3: conclusion (without "exposure to sunlight" + "darkness", no germination)

Notice that the conclusion drops the mention of BOTH brief and winter to extract the broader claim from the particular circumstance.

Seeing the conclusion structured this way should let you know that the use of words brief and the mention of winter is just noise -- tools the author uses to tie sentence 1 background info (context) to sentence 2 (premise) on the way to their broader conclusion.

b.) What does brief mean (short exposure to sunlight --> germination (if winter)

DOES NOT MEAN THE OPPOSITE

prolonged/never-ending exposure to sunlight -/-> germination (if winter)

ONLY the contrapositive can be assumed

if the seed germinated --> then it must have been briefly exposed to sunlight.

important distinction note for folks who chose D: germination versus growth.

Plowing BOTH a.) brings seeds to the surface AND b.) redeposits under soil again (makes sense, or else farmer's would just flip the soil like a pancake).

THEREFORE: plowing at night means the seeds that are super excited to see the sun BRIEFLY before they return to their home underground won't see it (plowing is like waving hello to the world versus leaving the house).

germination is priming the pump for growth, therefore sunlight + darkness (winter) is both necessary and sufficient for getting a seed ready to grow up.

BUT we don't know for certain what is required for growth (just because farmers redeposit it under the soil does not mean it is a required condition for growth one germinated). Alternative reason why farmers choose to plow versus just flipping soil: They may redeposit to keep birds from eating it.

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

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)

ngl did not choose B because none of the characteristics seemed like synonyms for "focus on the significant" (i.e., grace).

Ablso, both B and D felt like the same trap where the focus was in the wrong place; only after watching the lecture did I realize I totally missed the limited comparison too. Good to keep in mind for comparative problems moving forward ("than")

I made the same mistake. I think the major thing with these types of questions (the MSS) is that they are testing your ability to not jump to conclusions/make arguments. The toughest questions seem to throw in a bunch of details that seem like they are leading to a prescriptive/value based conclusion, when in fact it is just noise.

I did not answer B, not because it was not supported, but because I was like "duh, that's what the premise says" no way that is the conclusion if the last sentence is talking about tourists behavior. The tourists' behavior should be the subject.

It's a good trap to be mindful of (over-extension is what they are trying to goad you into, whereas others want to test your knowledge of irrelevance

love the way you thought of this, seems like a super basic LG thought process but they put it in LR form with MSS inferences, good to keep in mind for anyone else reviewing