I picked C in 38 seconds and wrote in blind review that I was killing it...

#feedback This is silly feedback, but in the written explanation there is a typo in the line: "I say 'kind of' because even if we flipped th bridge around, it’s still not necessary." ("th" should be "the")

Does anyone else get all the 4-5 difficulty ones correct and under the target time but struggles on like 1-2 difficulty lol?

Okay I got these all right essentially besides stating that "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" in the last one was a sub-conclusion instead of premise. But from the video...I see how it is a premise because it supports the main conclusion at the end.

#feedback I feel like the passage difficulty on this one should also be a 1.

Got this wrong because I ignored that it was an EXCEPT question and on BR somehow... ugh so of course I picked the answer choice 0% of people chose.

First one I got wrong in this section and my first note in BR was I don't like any of the answer choices and E- immediate elimination lmao

#feedback I think you should have reordered some of these because they were very obvious. Previous lessons taught that conclusion and premise can be in any order, so I thought the premise--> conclusion format was oddly simple. Also, I went further in defining fact v. rule premises because that was super helpful in the Disney example.

Everything has made sense, but this is still such a WILD argument to come up with as an example... out of ANYTHING, you guys chose THIS.

#feedback This is such a minor suggestion, but I really like when the videos have markers/timestamps for when certain answer choices are discussed (which this video doesn't have).

I got this right by rejecting the implication that growth of plankton had anything to do with decaying plankton. Like I had:

AgRun--> 2xPL--> growth at surface

SEPARATE from the long chain:

decaying plankton--> floor--> bacteria eat--> consumes oxygen --> depletion --> fish die

Is this wrong to do?

Did anyone else get every question right in this entire module and then get more wrong on the drill of 2 passages than they ever have in a complete RC section?? rip

Maybe it is just because I am not great at linking, but I used slightly different, simpler lawgic (or at least a different format) and got the same answer:

ECC= exact caffeine content

HI= health improves

ECC--> easier limit

easier limit HI

And then found the correct answer...

Is this too reductionist? Like am I ignoring important links?

The support for the Disney argument has the fewest holes/provides the fewest ways for the conclusion to be true in any other way. The tigers argument is still decently strong because, although not having as many supporting premises, the premise provided strongly supports the fact that at least one mammal (tiger) are not "suitable" to keep as pets––since one mammal (tiger) being unsuitable disqualifies the condition that ALL mammals could be suitable. The cat argument is weakest because the supporting premises are not necessarily indicative of the cat being the guilty party. Yes, the cat licks his paw that way when he has eaten, but the cat could have just eaten his own dinner or be cleaning himself. Correlation is NOT causation.

An analogous version of the Mr. Fat Cat argument:

Jenny came home and locked herself in her room without greeting her parents. She is usually hard on herself when she gets anything less than 100% on a test and will avoid talking about it. Her parents know she got her calculus test back today, so they hypothesize she got a less-than-perfect grade.

An analogous version of the Disney argument:

For the sake of time and demand, Klienfield's famous wedding dress store requires any individual trying on dresses to have physical proof or confirmation that they have registered their wedding with a venue. If an individual has yet to choose and confirm a venue, they could alternatively put down a $500 safety deposit that will be returned as soon as the store receives e-mail confirmation that the venue has been booked. Lindsay is still choosing between a destination wedding in Italy and a small wedding in her hometown and hasn't booked either. Despite this, she left Klienfield's today with her dream dress. Thus, it can be assumed Lindsay put down the $500 safety deposit before trying on dresses.

Okay for this one I just fully misread the entire stimulus and thought everything after "But" was the main argument.

I quickly got this one correct in Quick View before seeing the video. I completed foundations, and recognized what I was supposed to apply, but I find myself just skipping over all of those steps because it is really intuitive. Does anyone else feel like this/should I be applying techniques more consistently?

I am so upset because I wrote out the entire "full" stimulus and first two answer choices before it was revealed that it wasn't the full stimulus... RIP

I feel like nobody is going to understand this but I just figured out that J.Y. sounds so similar to Martin from Slushynoobz. Maybe I am crazy...