I know they are wrong*

Okay so I am getting these right but not because of the explanation JY is giving. I just seem to understand that the correct answer is NA. I don't know why wrong answers are wrong, but I know they are known. Does anyone else feel this way?

Okay so I get the answer right and I can explain why it's right but for the past questions, I can not explain why wrong answers are wrong with details. It just feels wrong to me.

this is when you guess and pray lmao

I would say that this is more like finding a piece of information that would answer who is right or evaluate the author's argument. That's how I see this now, but I am no expert, so I can be wrong.

The reason why I picked B is because it's consistent with what the author said in stimulus that "hiccups experienced by MANY victims" which translates roughly to a some relationship. Therefore, B just restates part of the stimulus. Is this a reasonable explanation?

This was quick

same. We don't know what happened before.

I believe it's just to see the bigger picture.

Based on my understanding, (I might be wrong)

Conditional Statements: SC indicates NC occurs, but doesn't cause it to occur. NC and SC can occur in any order meaning NC can occur first or SC can occur first.

Causal Statements: causes make an Effect happen. Cause occurs first, then effect occurs.

So basically, NC doesn't follow from SC???

I believe It stays the same as Most.

It just raises the floor.

look at what most is modifying.

Most "FISH" live in the ocean.

Most is modifying the fish not the ocean. Fish -m-> Ocean

yes

I meant to say Mammal in the first one*

Based on how I see this;

If SC occurs-> NC occurs (Cat-> Mammal): If I say Bella is a cat, that automatically means it's an animal. (La-> USA): If I am in LA, it means I am in USA.

If NC occurs-> Maybe SC occurs, maybe it doesn't. (Cat-> Mammal): If I say Bella is a mammal, you can't conclude it's a cat because it can be a dog.

If SC doesn't occur, it doesn't mean anything. NC may or may not occur.

IF NC doesn't occur, SC will not occur.

Think this way,

Rule: SC occurs, NC must occur.

NC occurs, Maybe SC occurred, maybe it didn't.

Ex. You are in LA, only if you are in USA.

Now, NC occurs, John is in the USA.

Can you conclude that John is in LA?

You can't because being in USA is NC. You don't have to be in LA to be in USA. You can be in NYC or Chicago.

Think of it this way,

If A, then B.

What would be the contrapositive?

If not B, then not A.

Why?

Because the rule states,

If sufficient conditions occur, necessary must occur. (To be a cat, you must be a mammal)

If a Necessary condition occurs, it doesn't mean sufficient occurred (it may or may not have occured). "You can be a mammal (NC) but not be a cat. (SC)"

AND if necessary doesn't occur, Sufficient CAN'T occur. "If you aren't a mammal, how can you be a cat?"

Now apply that to the example.

"Must" introduces the necessary condition.

SO it becomes...

To Qualify ----> Show characteristic

What if you don't show characteristics?

THEN you don't qualify.

Therefore it becomes...

/Show Characteristic----> /Qualify