that distinction between overlooking and assuming in the D really helped. Thank you!

the stimulus is in the form of the following conditional chain: /keyboard -> /use-computer -> write-c.processing.

answer choice a reads this way in conditional form: keyboard -> write-c.processing. this is a sufficiency necessity error. remember that often the correct answer choices in MBT are contrapositives

answer choice c reads like this: write.process ->keyboard. it correctly rearranges the condition of /A -> /B -> /C to C -> A in answer choice c, unlike A which is A (not negated) -> C (not negated)

still having a hard time with author's position/attitude questions: any tips anyone can provide when it comes to answer choices that detail the author's curiosity, implicit agreeance, etc?

think about it like the idea of being; the understanding/concept of being

Seriously! I had the worst contemp criticism and theory literature course a few years ago which is 100% helping me out now

I'm not sure that I understand how this paragraph embodies the author's argument? Can someone please explain? I saw this more as a Debate/Critique/Spotlight passage style

every single word I don't know I make sure to learn; on answer choices in LR and especially RC if you misunderstand or scrap up either the stimulus or answer choice to unknown you will miss the correct answer choice

I understand why b is correct, i just think that e is an attractive wrong answer choice and don't think the explanation as to why that is is revelatory; I was wondering if e would be incorrect because in comparison to b, b is more correct, or if e is entirely wrong because it does not qualify as a principle?

I found (e) to be incorrect because of its relevance to the conclusion and subject. I found it to be adding another fact which is why the explanation above said it strengthens the argument, but it is not necessary as it is not necessary to reach the conclusion. Try incorporating that fact into building the bridge and I feel like you'll understand what I mean :)

I think I'm going crazy, I've never had such a hard time grasping something as I have with this RRE section, can anyone suggest alternative resources that have worked for them to help understanding?

is someone able to remind me again why two most claims cannot yield an inference? thank you!

Can someone please explain the atcual difference between causation and correlation and what chronology and causal mechanisms helps to identify in deciding between the two?

First of all, really appreciate the game of thrones reference! Secondly, if anyone's having trouble with this exercise the biggest help to me has been copying the instructions, question, and results into chat gpt where it breaks it down into a thorough explanation.

Pro tip that hasn't really been emphasized in the lessons for this exercise: you can chain conditionals by recognizing the same elements in different clauses so be careful when placing them into symbols, make sure they are the same, if one symbol is positive in one clause, and negated in the other, uses the contrapositive of the proceeding one to keep the chain going logically. Here is my work if anyone wants to reference it as worked through example of question 1. (I know it looks long but it's just because I did some unnecessary preliminary work)

Question 1: If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth. If he synthesizes LSD, then he cannot cook meth. He can make heroin only if he synthesizes LSD.

Step 1: Yes.

Step 2:

Mr. White grows weed (sufficient/subset), then he also cooks meth (necessary/superset) – MW → M

If he synthesizes LSD (sufficient/subset), then he cannot cook meth (necessary/superset) – LSD → /M

He can make heroin (subset/sufficient) only if he synthesizes LSD (necessary/superset) – MH → LSD

Step 3:

Separate

MW → M: If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth.

Contrapositive: /M → /MW. If he cannot cook meth, then Mr. White does not grow weed.

LSD → /M: If he synthesizes LSD, then he cannot cook meth.

Contrapositive: M → /LSD. If he can cook meth, he cannot synthesize LSD

MH → LSD: He can make heroin only if he synthesizes LSD

Chaining Process:

To chain conditionals you need to find the common symbols between the different statement to connect them in a logical sequence to create one statement where consequence becomes another statement’s condition

Chaining MW → M with LSD → /M

You have to use the the contrapositive of LSD → /M to make it equal to M in the first chain.

So you link MW → M and M → /LSD.

Result: MW → M → /LSD

Chaining the above with MH → LSD

Again we must use the contraopsitive to make it equal to the above usage of the contrapositive.

/LSD → /MH (contrapositive): He cannot synthesize LSD if he cannot make heroin.

Step 4:

Result: MW → M → /LSD → /MH

Translating back to English: If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth. If he cannot synethsize LSD, then he can cook meth. If he canot synthesize LSD, he cannot make heroin.

Contrapositive chain: MH → LSD → /M → /MW

Translating back to English: If he cannot make heroin, he can synthesize LSD. If he can synethesize LSD then he cannot cook meth. If he cannot cook meth, Mr. White cannot grow weed.

How is this different from "negate sufficiency"

Quick question in reference to the following:

store → milk

[sufficient condition] → [necessary condition]

So why would store be the sufficient thing in relation to milk and not the other way around?

I am having trouble with this section. I realize that I am memorizing the format for the first question of every numerical section and am applying it going forward. I am having trouble being over/under inclusive of the predicate object and/or verb or getting them wrong altogether. Can you please give me advice on how to depart from memorizing and go into understanding? Anything would be helpful!

I'm not sure that I understand the difference between noun and subject modification. Is the noun being modified in both? How can you tell when the subject has been modified?

Can someone please confirm that I have this right? An argument is then a combination of a conclusion and premise, and the conclusion is the statement of the argument that is supported by the premise, which is the evidence supporting the conclusion. Yes?