This is all super thorough and definitely helps check the logic and reasoning, but I wanted to flag that I also eliminated B just because the stimulus doesn't tell us anything about a time "before" the phosphorus levels doubled.

The stimulus only tells us about the period now, following the past few decades during which the phosphorus levels have doubled -- not before this period of phosphorus growth. As such, we have no information from the stimulus regarding a time before this phenomenon occurred. Thus, a claim about such a period, including that "most fish were able to survive" cannot be supported and is rendered more as an assumption. We can't know this for sure. Maybe there was a pack of killer hungry sharks in the waters during the pre-phosphorus era in this ocean region that was eating all the fish, still meaning most fish couldn't survive.

I agree that if the word "most" was changed to "more", as you suggest, B could be closer to being true, but even then, we still don't have any info from the stimulus about the fish population and their survival rates in the pre-phosphorus period, including if even more survived during that period. To demonstrate, the killer shark population could have eaten enough fish during the pre-phosphorous period to balance out the loss of fish in the post-phosphorous era.

Essentially, since the stimulus never speaks about the time before the phosphorous levels increased, we cannot anticipate or know what other variables could have affected the fish population then, and thus, any claims (in the Answer options) about their survival rates and population size during a prior time cannot be validly supported, instead serving more as assumptions.

BUT, all this being said, I think the logic you have used, which maps the different answer choices on the spectrum of validity, would have been really well applied if this was a MSS question! Thank you for mapping it like that because I struggle most with MSS Qs!

same...same.

#feedback

I understand that B is confusing sufficient and necessary, which is fundamentally why it is wrong, but I also eliminated it because the rule dictated in the stimulus states "[the Florida panther] population must reach at least 250 in order to be self sustaining" while answer B states, "If the population of Florida panthers ever exceeds 250, it will be self-sustaining". What made me detect this answer as wrong (before actually considering the sufficient-necessary inversion), is the difference between reaching at least 250 to be self-sustaining and exceeding 250 to be self sustaining.

Let's imagine that, for Answer B, the sufficient and necessary weren't inverted and that Answer B instead read as follows: "If the population of Florida panthers ever becomes self-sustaining, its population has exceeded 250".

In Lawgic, such an inverted (corrected) Answer B would be:

SS --> 250+

Since the stimulus mentions that the population must only be at least 250, not necessarily exceed 250, doesn't the stimulus Lawgic actually require "greater or equal to 250", not "more than 250" as JY indicated above? I understand the stimulus Lawgic should actually be:

SS --> 250≥

If this is the case, Answer B is not only wrong because the sufficient and necessary are confused, but also because self sustenance would require even just 250 panthers, not necessarily an excess of or more than 250 panthers.

With this in mind, I would notate (a corrected sufficient-necessary) Answer B as follows if I wanted to check its validity:

(FP = Florida panthers)

SS --> FP^250≥

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

SS --> FP^250+

Not valid.

Any feedback, confirmation, or explanation as to why this is wrong, would be very appreciated!

thank you!!! wishing you luck!

I just did three drills, increasing the difficulty each time and studying my errors in blind review and via the explanations afterwards, noting real lapses in judgement or things I need to keep in mind for future questions.

Doing this each round, I got three q's wrong on the first medium-difficulty mode, two wrong on the harder-difficulty mode, and zero wrong on the last, hardest-difficulty mode. I am just sharing this in case others beat themselves up when they get a question wrong, since I definitely do. These drills have been the first time in my studying where I am seeing myself actually developing technique and learning the strategy in a more linear and logical fashion, in turn actually arriving at results.

Be gentle with yourself! I haven't been and I needed this reminder that its just a process and a learning curve.

thank youuu @mitsubaatlaw

Good news: I got it right and fully understand how I arrived at a confident answer

Bad news: it took me 9 minutes to work through lmao

in application....since it says "unless" I will do the Group 3 technique... pick either idea, then negate that idea. then make the negated idea the sufficient condition. the other idea becomes the necessary condition. the two ideas are "DNBJ" (does not become a jedi) and "HED" (have extraordinary discipline). i will choose to negate DNBJ so it becomes /DNBJ (to note, it is a double negative and ultimately reads "negated does not become jedi" so it basically just means becomes jedi).

/DNBJ->HED

/HED->DNBJ

yes, i just worked this out on a sheet of paper and i think the operative detail is that it is about one not becoming a jedi. not just the state of being a jedi in itself.

so if you make it DNBJ (does not become jedi) rather than simply J (jedi), the math then works better.

a* mammal

explicitly* lol

All cats are sufficiently mammals but not all mammals need to be cats

It is /enough/ (sufficient) for an animal to be a cat to be considered a mammal

It is /not enough/ for an mammal to automatically be considered a cat (it needs to be explicitely a cat to be considered a cat)

I agree, it completely depends on the missing item being compared against "very cold days". If, indeed, the missing item is "now", then "now" would be the winner, per the following, "At least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature NOW than they had been accustomed to maintain on very cold days."

But, the "now" doesn't tell us anything about the temperature quality of the day (rather just the temporal quality, i.e. that it is current). "Now" could refer to a warm now, a hot now, or also, still, a very cold now. I personally assumed it would be a "very cold now" because it would make sense that a study is investigating a change of behavior among households while temp conditions are the same, but periods of comparison (now vs. then) are different. That makes sense as a research finding perhaps assessing the impact of rising gas prices (e.g. gas has gone up so people are using less gas to heat their homes, with study findings indicating that 59 percent of households are maintaining a lower indoor temperature now on very cold days than they were accustomed to maintaining on similarly very cold days, in order to use less gas and save money in the current economy).

So, I agree with you that "very cold days" is indeed the winner by that logic, as the nature of the days being compared (very cold) doesn't change...but it would still need the necessary qualifier of being very cold days now as opposed to an earlier data reference period.

However, to note, if we replace "now" with a word that compares the temperature of the day as opposed to the temporal quality of the day, like "warm days", (though the research study may not make as much sense, because, of course warm days lead to lower indoor temps compared to cold days lol, like, who would research that) the winner would then be "warm days", per the following: "At least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature on warm days than they had been accustomed to maintain on very cold days."

they are still important because they let you know which subset the author is specifically talking about, for example, or may provide additional context that can impact meaning. this technique is to just help us identify the subject, verb, and predicate-object of a sentence when parsing long, multi-clause sentences

"of America" is its a preposition embedded into the sentence (a preposition is a word that shows a relationship between two things). The word "of" in "of America" shows a relationship between the territories and America--that is, the territories are of America or belong to America. Thus, "of America" is telling us more about the word "territories"- it serves as a modifier of the word "territories."

So, "territories" is the predicate object of the whole sentence and "of America" is a further modification of that word ("territories").

To think of it in another way, "of America" helps specify whose territories were expanded. It's just a further modification of the predicate object of the whole sentence, which is "territories".

Imagine it didn't say "territories of America" but rather said "territories by the seaside". The predicate object of the whole sentence would remain "territories" and "by the seaside" would again simply be a modifier to describe it. Or, flipped around, imagine it didn't say "territories of America" but rather said "seaside territories". Again, "territories" would be the predicate object of the whole sentence and, in this case, "seaside" would be an adjective (again, serving as a modifier of the object).

"America" functions as the object of the prepositional word "of" in the prepositional phrase "of America". This phrase serves as a modifier of the word "territories." "Territories" is the predicate object of the whole sentence and "of America" is a further modification of that word ("territories").

In other words, "of America" helps specify whose territories were expanded. It's just a further modification of the predicate object of the whole sentence, which is "territories".

Think of another example. Imagine it didn't say "Territories of America" but rather said "territories by the seaside". The predicate object of the whole sentence would remain "territories" and "by the seaside" would again simply be a modifier to describe it. Or, flipped around, imagine it didn't say "Territories of America" but rather said "seaside territories". Again, "territories" would be the predicate object of the whole sentence and, in this case, "seaside" would be an adjective (again, serving as a modifier of the object).

the trick is to seek out semantic logical equivalence - "not all are beneficial" = "some fail to be beneficial"