Looking at some Logical reasoning questions: I always read the stimulus twice, but it is interesting to think of the stimulus as a reader speaking to you.

I think for these types of questions: if the stimulus contains some form of conditional indicators then the answer choice may also be confusing sufficient with necessary. I was attracted to B for a little but I think B is incorrect becasue must be true is different than unlikely.

Can someone explain the reasoning behind answer choice D? I think that becasue scientists only report dramatic findings. Since small observational studies are more frequent than small observational studies they must be more likely to be dramatic. then, the stimulus fails to consider that they might be more common becasue they are more likely to be dramatic which means that it is common to be reported.

I do not understand why C is the correct answer. I clicked D but then switched to C and then got it correct. (I guessed) I switched it becasue D talks about evidence being admitted and the stimulus does not talk about evidence being admitted. It is more interested in the reliability of DNA testing.

I found this question to be simple. My thought process was in general people go on strikes to gain something out of it. If you look at it from that perspective, going on strike would cost you a job for a little bit, but think about the benefits of getting a raise from the outcome of the strike. That is why C is correct because it fails to consider that. E is incorrect because it goes against the context of the stimulus.

I got this question incorrect. I was between answer choices E and B. I eliminated A becasue I was following the order of the stimulus. Not thinking of it as satisfying the condition. Can anyone explain why A is correct? I started my conditional as ER -> EMC then, ASL (the act of saving a life) -> EA (is this correct?) I did not know that the stimulus was saying if you have a good record, saved someone's life, AND did reasonably expected then you can get the award. how does A describe these three being met?

I think this stimulus is chaining conditionals. I did not understand what the question was asking and I was trying to figure out the formal logic for the conditional indicator None. The way I understood this stimulus was if you are fully qualified then you do not already work in that company. I said well if you are most productive then you should be qualified. The application says that Delacruz is a fully qualified candidate, so I said he must be the most productive to be hired. I did not pick out E right away becasue I was confused on the None part. Any thoughts?

Can anyone explain why B is incorrect? I do not understand why.

From my understanding, NA are types of questions that require the answer choice to be strongly true to reach the argument's conclusion. Through doing the Negation test if it destroys the argument then the answer choice is necessary for the argument to reach its conclusion. My concern on the other hand is when I am practicing the questions I get confused about if looking for the NA I am looking for new information OR it is finding gaps such as if something is said in the premise but the conclusion introduces something else. That is why I am getting the answers incorrect.

What would be an identifier in the stimulus to indicate if it was the only cause? I also chose B thinking in that direction, but that answer was incorrect.