#help

How do you know to focus on the part of Trent's response about dust, rather than the part of his response about the extinction taking many years?

#help - is this a valid way of thinking about this question?

Conclusion is causal, so we're looking at: Inhibition (A) --causes--> HR increase (B).

We need to rule out that 1) B doesn't cause A (heart rate increase doesn't cause inhibition of emotions), that 2) a third factor (like, say, emotion-provoking situations) doesn't cause both inhibition of emotions and HR increases, and 3) that inhibiting emotions and HR increases are entirely coincidental.

Negating A means that emotion provoking situations definitely do cause HR increases for nonrepressors, which prevents the premise that nonrepressors, when they inhibit their emotions, have heart rate increases from supporting the conclusion that conscious for unconscious inhibition causes HR increases. This is an example of some third thing causing at least HR increases (B).

#help This is kind of a specific question, but it's come up for me a couple of times now: I thought the diagramming rules say that we can't split a disjunction in the necessary condition? I thought we could only split a disjunction in the sufficient or a conjunction in the necessary...

#help

Could someone do a deep dive on negating E? I get how to negate a conditional, and I get that at least one is “some”, but I’m struggling with how to go from “some would not cut” to “all would cut”

Can I try it?

Maybe this isn't relevant, but I'm having trouble reading AC C as still allowing for the possibility that there were changes in residential architecture post-WWII...wouldn't the fact that low-ceiling, thin-wall houses were prevalent before the advent of AC push against the claim that changes happened at all?

#help

I'm sorry, but my interpretation of the video is that J.Y. is interpreting "successful screening" to mean "the milk passed the screening" (i.e., it does not have high enough levels of antibiotics to be dangerous). I read "successful screening" to mean "the milk was able to be screened and it indeed completed that process". In fact, the tooltip explanation for D seems to support this reading. Why in the world would J.Y.'s reading be any more reasonable than my reading?

Please #help

#help

Is it leaving anything important out to say that this question turns on making you think being eloquent is a necessary condition for impressing an audience, when it reality it’s neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition? I think that would’ve helped me, but I still would’ve thought that eloquent speakers who impress their audience were a superset of eloquent speakers who impress their audience with clarity etc. even though that’s not material to the question. Any advice on why that doesn’t matter?

#help

Can someone help explain why C is wrong? I felt like C was pretty attractive but I’m obviously missing something. It was down to C and E, and while I eventually chose E, C seems like it’s saying pretty much the same thing. Why isn’t saying that willingness to pay isn’t proportional to need disputing the component of reasoning the economist uses to justify the conclusion that price gouging is efficient. Isn’t the consumer advocate just engaging in a premise attack? The economist says one thing and the advocate says “no it’s not”?

@NathanielWright came here looking for an answer to this same question. Adding a #help to boost

#help

Can someone do a deeper dive on E? I understand why including plant life maybe doesn't strengthen the argument, but how does it weaken the argument? To me, "Inventory" suggested an appendix or something separate from the animal count. Why would we assume that the plant count and animal count are all mixed together in such a way that some increase in plant life would mask a decrease in animal life?

#help

Could someone show me how they diagrammed E)? I said:

C <—s—> Meals —> Healthy Ing.

————-

C —> Healthy Ing.

The explanation says this is a valid argument, but some doesn’t imply all - all implies some. Where’s my conceptual error involving the cornmeal being an ingredient in the meals?

Why is D not an example of attacking a premise instead of attacking the support structure?

@TobiStein but I mean, isn’t it also necessary to assume (for any argument, not just this one) that the causal pathway isn’t running the opposite direction that the conclusion takes it to be? I’m having trouble with the “only if” part of the initial post, but maybe my brain is too LSAT-ified right now

@MichaelWright incredible explanation. Thank you.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but isn’t it still invalid even if Z doesn’t cause X and Y (common cause/confounding). Aren’t there two other possible explanations (Y causes X, or coincidence)?

#help

It's a pretty hard sell for me to believe that saying "diminishing returns are mathematically difficult to represent" is an adequate explanation of the difficulty of modeling diminishing returns. Can someone explain why this isn't circular?

This feels like "explain[ing] a difficultly with modeling a particular economic assumption" by stating that it is difficult.

#help

Could someone take a stab at diagramming this? Is this prompt even amenable to diagramming?

#help

This seems like a very weird way to go about strengthening an argument. I feel like it depends too heavily on the test taker thinking of the right alternative hypothesis to discredit so that they can identify the corresponding piece of evidence that contradicts it. Why not cut to the chase and ask yourself which answer choice makes the conclusion more likely to be more, similar to an MSS question?

#help

Re: D, why isn't it possible that the price could've doubled without the speed/transistors doubling? Couldn't there have been other reasons, at intervals other than 18 months?

I sort of get that the word "accompanied" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, but when JY draws the bi-conditional it destroys my understanding of the relationship.

#help

Can someone explain how the distribution of the "not" symbol is working here?

#help

For Q3, I would've translated the embedded conditional as:

/NEA --> (OC --> PMPO)

If using the Domain + Rule technique, why is the domain not found by taking the outside sufficient condition (i.e., D: /NEA)?