@MilaNacca this is a nice example!

@kae Thanks all!

@KevinLin Ahh ok.... thank you!! It's obvious now you mention it (and both 'for' and 'after all' are in my notes as premises) Something about this question just threw me.

One of my challenges with this question is correctly identifying the conclusion. Any tips for why the first line is the conclusion in this specific question?

@scaronnam it’s been nearly 20 years that I was in high school, and I couldn’t remember the acronym we used.. I think it was the “Pea” or “Peal” approach (the L was - to link back to the main argument at the end of each paragraph or between paragraphs) - thank you for reminding me!!!

I was a bit thrown by this question because I wasn't 100% sure if we could interpret the Botai people inhabiting an area 6,000 years ago as 'prehistoric'. I wasn't sure if this was bringing in outside info about what is the prehistoric period. Is it because of the analogy with prehistoric goat herding that it's reasonable to infer it's also a prehistoric period?

Ahh.. probably similar to others here, I hesitated with option A because I didn't see "adopting a policy" the same as "not eliminating funding" (which I see as not axing a policy)

I'm so annoyed by this question... I feel like it's such stereotyping. I'm not originally from the US, but living here I still eat U.S. food. The only reason I really discounted E was because of assuming they eat Indian curries because of their heritage... ugh

If D said "some" lawyers instead of "most", would it still be incorrect, because the passage only gives facts about some lawyers beliefs re: custom-made illustrations... we don't explicitly know their beliefs on textbook vs custom-made illustration?

Essentially, would it be a reasonable inference to make that "some" lawyers believe that textbook illustrations are less prone than custom-made illustrations to misrepresent nature of personal injury?

If diagramming on the test (which I feel is needed for this Q), I feel like this would take so long... any tips?

@samuel.e.belcher same, arghh

@moshi Thank you!

this is super helpful.

which lesson would you advise is best for becoming a pro at negation?

Could someone give a quick summary of a 'necessary' cause, in the context of informal/causal logic? My understanding is something i's a necessary cause if the effect is present. But does it need to also be the only necessary cause? Or can there be multiple necessary causes for the same effect/outcome? My guess is yes, but want to check.

Any useful examples would be v helpful!

In the text summaries, giving alternative phrasing to show how the answer choices could be correct are v useful (e.g., here is an argument that (E) would accurately describe). I often struggle most with understanding the phrasing of the answer choices, so examples are useful - thanks!

Something I realize I was getting wrong this whole time... the phrase 'how does the argument proceed' made me think 'what will the author say next'. But I think we need to describe the techniques or strategies used in the argument itself (self-contained in the stem...) - if I'm wrong, please let me know!

I'm sometimes struggling to see when a premise could or could not be a major premise/sub-conclusion...

Is "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" not a major premise/sub-conclusion, despite being the cause & effect in the stim's causal chain?

Also, if there is a sub-conclusion in an argument (and that's the excerpt's role) are there general ways that the answer choices could be phrased?

RE "Deconstruct the argument through the causal and moral frameworks." Just wondering which lesson talks about deconstructing an argument through 'moral frameworks'? (last line on page) Or if someone could explain that would be great!

Could someone signpost to the lesson looking at prescriptive / descriptive arguments, and how this is helpful when looking at answer choices...

I find the diagrams helpful, especially when linking different question types together :)

Just to confirm.... is this rule sufficient and necessary? "Rule: the value of a diamond should derive solely from the aesthetic pleasure it provides."

Or, in the example, is it only the rule "the amount of aesthetic pleasure that a diamond provides is relevant to the value that it commands" that is necessary (but not sufficient)?

Is there an earlier lesson that talks about prescription-to-judgment inferences?

Useful summary!