I thought of it like- well, even if dramatic stories might be the result of reporting itself instead of the studies themselves, the conclusion that there are more smaller dramatic stories than bigger dramatic stories could still stand. regardless of the cause/effect of the dramatic element, the conclusion could still be argued.

also, another thing that helped me, is thinking that trying to understand why there are dramatic stories is irrelevant to the task at hand, which is to find the flaw. if this was a RRE question, for example (with a few tweaks, ofc), understanding why could help

not sure if any of this is right, my brain is fried as well lol but that's just how i thought of it during blind review!

I also had this thought! I think the reason why E is not required is because even if tuition is going up (let's say from 100 to 150, then to 200, etc.), this could still mean that it's low tuition compared to other universities (if they charged 500, for example). because the conclusion relies on the comparison with other institutions, E would need this type of comparison to be right. I hope this makes sense!

#feedback

^^ I have the same exact question!! Any help would be great :)

I agree with this! This would be very very helpful instead of having to go through the entire video to see what type of question it is.

I'm going through the same thing! It may be helpful to just know why you got it right and why the other ones are wrong so you can find some patterns and (hopefully) be able to use them in other questions in which answers may not intuitively come to you, if that makes sense. Hope this is helpful! :)

This was so helpful, thank you so much for taking the time to write that out!

You got this Abigal! Thank you for the motivation!

Thank you for this video. Was having a tough time today trying to find motivation for studying and this helps. THANK YOU BRAD you are awesome!!!!!

I'm not sure if this will help or if I am fully correct, but this is the way I think of it:

In general (without thinking of Group 1, 2, or 3 of conditional indicators), this is how I think of sufficiency versus necessity, and I always come back to a simple example to make it easier: Dogs will develop an attachment to anyone who feeds them daily. In a different order, it's saying that if anyone feeds dogs daily, dogs will develop an attachment to them. So, if you are someone who feeds the dogs daily, they will development an attachment to you, or the daily act of feeding them is SUFFICIENT for them to develop an attachment to you. But, this may not be the only way that the dog can develop an attachment to you (they can development an attachment if you give them pets, if you let them outside, etc.), meaning that feeding them is not NECESSARY for them to develop an attachment to you. Hence, feeding them is enough (or may be a reason why) they develop an attachment, but feeding them is not required (or there may be other reasons) for them to develop an attachment. Drawing it out as subsets and supersets with circles also helps me, a lot (the necessary condition is the superset, and the sufficient condition is the subset). Also, to make it easier "who" is a Group 1 indicator, meaning that anything that follows "who" (in most cases) will be a sufficient condition.

The contrapositive translations also help me think of it in simpler terms. The contrapositive argument will place a member outside of the superset (aka failing the necessary condition), to determine that the same member is outside the subset (aka failing the sufficient condition). So, for the dog example, think of it this way: If a dog does not develop an attachment to a person, that person did not feed the dog daily.

Another example that I always revert back to is cats and mammals. So, being a mammal is NECESSARY to being a cat (like Garfield, for example), but being a cat is SUFFICIENT to being a mammal because you can be a mammal and not be a cat (like a dog, a bear, etc.) Again, it really helps me to draw the circles showing supersets and subsets to make it easier. Just remember that subset membership is sufficient for superset membership (like I just mentioned that a cat is sufficient to being a mammal), and that superset membership is necessary for subset membership (like I just mentioned being a mammal is necessary to being a cat).

If I am wrong in any of this, anyone please feel free to correct me! Hope this helps, and good luck!