6 minutes but got it right!

I'm an artist so I think about NA and SA through an "art imitates life" lens

so in my head - say you want to paint a flower.

• Necessary: you cannot have petals without a seed. Seed is the bare minimum

• Sufficient: full growing conditions (seed + soil + water + sunlight + time) are sufficient if ALL of those are present, petals are guaranteed.

very general illustration and could be up for debate but it helps me at least!

@GnatTaylor how do you know something is flagged for blind review? I haven't seen that feature!

curious, how long did others spend on this drill? Took me 18ish minutes to get 4/5 questions right. I know I need to work on my timing, but have heard accuracy is what I should prioritize first. I guess I'm asking, is my time within reasonable range for someone who started studying 6 weeks ago? When should I realistically start being really concerned/obsessed about timing?

How do you know when to infer and when not to infer?

I took the description of Pat for face value and did not infer that they were a member of VideoKing because the stimulus doesn't tell us they are a member of VideoKing.

But sometimes, our lessons tell us not to infer/assume. Are there any guidelines we can follow?

took me 7 minutes but this is my first level 5 difficulty question that I've gotten correct!

@JacobBaska thank you!

@JacobBaska hi! What is your advice if you're >10 years out of undergrad and operating in senior leadership roles already? I have community based leadership programs I am in -- of which I can get a LoR, I also have a best friend from college who has gone on to be an attorney and can speak to my character/study habits/fitness for law. I have maybe one professor I keep in touch with and one former manager I could ask, but the ask would be out of left field.

@xzhang22 ty!! v helpful!

@ckilk tysm!!

I read this question as what best expresses the reasoning behind the author's argument. As in, why did the author believe in her argument that criticism of Handel's da capo arias is invalid. In which case, I thought B would be the explanation.

How can I correct this mental model? does "reasoning" always mean "argument/conclusion?" in questions like these?

how is "some parrots are not clever" which was cited as an incorrect interpretation of the negated, "Some parrots ARE clever," different from "all parrots are not clever." Wouldn't "all parrots are not clever" include the "some"?

@Laylay i thought necessary condition was always in the right?

this f'd me up

can someone explain how this is not correct?

Identify A & B

• A: Some cultivars of corn

• B: Most cultivars of corn

What we're comparing them on:

• morphological closeness to sorghum

Identify the winner

• some cultivars of corn

I know I'm not thinking about it correctly, but I also cannot find the rationale that adjusts my logic here.

so in #2 -- I think there was a conclusion but it seems like it was someone else's conclusion. So that means the author did not assert their own conclusion and instead reported someone else's conclusion..and so there is no conclusion...?