The question stem also says that they "failed to consider", which doesn't mean that the whole population of people who contract these diseases will die sooner, but at least some could. Since the conclusion determined that the number of deaths would be cut in half, they fail to consider that at least some of those people don't have ALS, cancer, infections, etc.

Personally, I would not rule out strong language for flaw questions. All the question choices are doing to be adjacent to the stimulus, and there has to be some intuition while reading; which can include strong language. For example, when I was reading this I was thinking, "well most of the people who were hospitalized or put on strong drugs were already sick, or they would not need those interventions". So the answer, which does use the word "soon", is just a different way of saying that.

(this is not diagramming conditional relationships, I am just trying to explain how death can be sooner for sick people)

Healthy person - not in need to medical intervention

In need of medical intervention - not healthy person - death is in the near future

Though they may have adverse risk because of said treatment, if they were left untreated, there would be worst risks, AKA dying sooner (dying of cancer OR dying because chemo shut your body down and killed your immune system, but gave you 6 more months)

Same!!

Same. I literally closed my eyes when I clicked "see results" lmao.

LMAO

Same!! It is such a sign or relief haha

I think it is important to remember that we don't know when the last time they tried was. "Since those days" could have been 50 years ago, or yesterday. So, when looking at this argument it is necessary to assume that it is not any easier to domesticate animals currently to understand why they still have not done it. Think of it as the opposite. If it DID get easier to do it, we would have domesticated more large mammals.

Me too! :) I think a the way JY explains things is just one way to look at it. As long as S and N aren't getting swapped, it can be looked at in any way that makes the most sense to the test taker!

I did this question before the video, and I feel like I am finally at a point where I can intuitively pick the answer while reading the stimulus!!

I think you'll be surprised with the amount of time you'll have to work on these harder ones. The majority of questions are easy/medium and with practice you can breeze through them. So, the time you have left over can be used to answer these harder ones. That being said, do not waste time on them if you do not have time to spare. Realistically these hard ones will be the on the back end of the test, so at that point you will have a good idea of timing available.

I stared at A for a good minute straight, truly doubting my choice, but I am soo happy I trusted my gut!

I would say 2-4 per section. I have found that the most are in RC

Absolutely! JY's thought process is inevitably going to be different than other people's, because we all have different brains. His explanation is just a helping hand, and if you are able to come to the correct conclusion using a different thought process, then go for it!

I very rarely diagram anything unless I am having a hard time understanding the passage.

You can do it!!!! I believe in you, and I promise it gets easier with practice

Same!! I feel like its a clear S and N with nothing else.

I think you need to remember that sufficient is the subject and the necessary is the predicate. For example, the subject is another 21+ and the predicate (which basically means the action being performed) is being legal to buy alcohol. If there is no subject (21+ person), then there would be no one to perform that action. Or the contrapositive, if there was no one at the legal age to buy alch, there was no one 21+.

Hi! We can not concluded that a revolution will not follow because there can be many other reasons for revolutions, which we do not have any indicators for. The only connection we know is that a revolution will happen if anyone is society is corrupt, but it didn't say that's the ONLY reason revolutions happen.

Hope this helps!

I don't think so because both of those "either" can logically be removed from the statement and it is still correct. "You must sit at one end of the table or the other" AND "Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester" are both still correct statements.

I think the difference between the statement is that we know that someone can't sit on both ends of the table, but we don't know if Jon can only take one of the classes or not, which makes is ambiguous.

Hi! I feel like I have a really good grasp on the conditional logic, and that has just come with time. I also used to feel like it created an inference that was not an absolute. However, I have learned to look at it in a way that helps us almost eliminate an answer.

So for example, "Acoustic guitars produce sound only through the vibration of strings."

We know that the conditional logic would look something like this:

PRODUCE SOUND - VIBRATION OF STRINGS

/VIBRATION OF STRINGS - /PRODUCE SOUND

What this is telling us is that there can be multiple necessary things that are needed for an acoustic guitar to produce sound (sufficient condition), but among some of those things there is the necessity of the vibration of the strings (necessary condition). So, we don't have guarantee that the stated outcome will happen, because we KNOW from the passage that it will. The necessary statement is the definitive fact in whether or not the conditional logic is correct.

An easy example:

"It can rain only if there are clouds in the sky"

RAIN - CLOUDS IN THE SKY

/CLOUDS IN THE SKY - /RAIN

We know that there are many other reasons for clouds, and there is no guarantee that if it's a cloudy day, it will also be a rainy one. But, we know for a fact that if it is a cloudless sunny day, there will be no rain, since it is necessary for there to be clouds for rain to be produced.

I hope this helped!

Hi! We might have a different set of questions, but on my end it says "Zebras will recognize danger signals from all species they coexist with".

The "all" tells us that it is a sufficient conditions, and therefore we know that if zebras can't recognize danger symbols, then they do not coexist.

The reason that coexisting is not necessary is because it doesn't say anything about all animals. Maybe zebras can recognize danger symbols from lions they DON'T coexists with, but they can't with sharks. It isn't necessary for a zebra to coexist with an animal to read their danger signals. However we know for a fact that if they coexist with the animal they will be able to read their danger signals.

Does this help?

Yes!! This was also a recommendation I used. Also grabbing books from the local library helps.

I thought so too lol. Not sure why it isn't.

So I would argue that 1 is an argument since the public will always be buying laptops, but it can plausibly be argued that the reason there were more bought this year was a result of decreased prices. This also leaves room for other possible explanations. Could more laptops have been bought because more people took work from home jobs? Or what if senior citizens are now needing them because everything is virtual? This is where the argument is formed.

For 3, it is a cause and effect, which makes it a casual relationship. We know that volcano eruptions will destroy an island, and because there was no evidence given that suggests that other things were going on, it is a direct correlation. For example, 1 tells us that more laptops were bought then ever before, so there has been a notable change in laptop sales (meaning we know there were already laptops being bought previously), which could be arguably due to the decrease in prices. The volcano example just says that the island has been destroyed because of a volcanic eruptions, which is just a cause and effect, and not arguable. However for 3, if it was a weaken question, it could be argued that there had also been severe wild fires on the island recently, and then it would require an argument that the volcano was responsible for the destruction and not the wild fires.

I hope this helps!