Great, thanks!

Thanks for the reply!

#help I think I understand that intuitively

“No matter how distinctive her style may be, her subject matter is simply not varied enough” can be translated into Great Writers—>Varied Subject Matter.

However I’m confused about when to rely on intuition rather than logic, because if I were to use the no as the logical indicator then would the sentence would be translated into; Distinctive Style —> Subject Matter Varied.

I guess this does not capture the true meaning of the sentence, but I'm confused about how to recognize this going forward

Makes sense, thanks!

Thanks for confirming! Good luck with your studies!

Thanks! :)

For AC ‘C’ isn’t the conclusion “some painters are dancers” rather than “some dancers are musicians”??

The ‘since’ indicates the premises (some painters are musicians and some musicians are dancers) which support the conclusion “ some painters are dancers” #Help #help

For AC ‘C’ isn’t the conclusion “some painters are dancers” rather than “some dancers are musicians”??

The ‘since’ indicates the premises (some painters are musicians and some musicians are dancers) which support the conclusion “ some painters are dancers” #Help #help#help

Was anyone able to sign up for the 21st? I am a first time test taker and am curious if those days are blocked for 'retakes' or special purposes.

#help I got this answer right through POE, however, I still don't understand how AC (C) solves both issues; a)more reading and b) more financially successful magazines.

It seems explain problem b), but doesn't address a) why there are more people reading.

Is it because these magazines' revenue relies on circulation and so given that they have more $ coming in there must be more circulation, meaning there must be more people reading??

If anyone knows that would be wonderful!

#help

Given that BT and SF exist in a causal relationship, rather than a conditional relationship, I think the translation is better understood as BT causes SF rather than BT --> SF.

It would be great if you or someone else is able to clarify whether BT--> SF is just plain incorrect and instead it should be translated as either;

BT causes SF

or

SF is caused by BT

Thanks!

I believe it's this one;

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/

#help I got this question right, however while doing the BR, I couldn't definitively say that AC (B) was incorrect. What is preventing it from being diagrammed like;

LB -> JBP (Jenny’s Birthday Party)

and thus resulting in the correct answer?

#help I had the same question. Can anyone confirm that it is acceptable because they are correlated and they don't exist in a suff/nec relationship?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but no, I think that it must be translated as

BT--> SF

/SF

---------------

/BT

I understand why E is correct and recognize that it identifies the MAJOR flaw, however I am trying to eliminate AC (C) which states " too quickly generlizes from the sport at one level to the sport at a different level".

Isn't the author identifying acceptable behaviour exhibited at a professional level and generalizing this to also be acceptable at an unprofessional level (premise) ?#help#help

#help I got this question right, however now I am unsure of my reasoning. I eliminated AC (B) because, to me, it does not ensure that Arnold would NOT have missed the flight anyway rather it seems to be talking about the reason Arnold is forced to miss the flight in the first place, which is not apart of Jamie's argument. Is this correct?

Isn't AC (C) incorrect because of its "sufficient, necessary" error?

Instead of saying that TG --> O and F, it erroneously says that O and F--> TG

Thanks you! Can you clarify how you misread the 'OR' and what the proper interpretation of this 'OR" is?

#help

Is the placement of the word “not” within the sentence the only reason why we negate the conditional statement like in example (A) rather than example (B)? Or is there another reason I'm missing? :

(A) “Being intelligent does NOT imply that one is wise”

not (I → W)

vs.

(B)“Being intelligent implies that one is NOT wise”

I → /W

When learning how to convert group 3 and group 4 words into lawgic JY stated that it DID NOT matter which idea went on either side of the arrow, as long as the negation was applied to the correct 'side'. Why doesn't this work for this question? Is it because of NOT applying to the Y portion of the statement?

#help (Added by Admin)

If you have any availability, I'd love to join!

Thanks for replying!

#help I'm having trouble differentiating Most Strongly Supported and Strengthening questions. I think that MSS differs from strengthening questions as it has the word SUPPORTED in the stem rather than just SUPPORT. Any other ways to help differentiate them?

Interested!