I read the stimulus as it totally makes sense..... The amount of car thefts have declined in the past five years, because more thieves get caught now.... The only discrepancy I could even think of was why it didn't drop more dramatically, proportionally to the thieves getting caught... which led me choose E

#feedback "Causation v. Conditional" link is not working. I presume this video would be quite important to understand why JY applied double arrows of Lawgic in this stimulus. I've gone through all fundamentals available but cannot comprehend this piece.

#feedback The last paragraph first sentence - "consistent with" should be "merely consistent with". Although I prefer video lessons like most other comments here pointed out, I don't mind reading to get the knowledge I need. But please make it correct so students can easily follow along. When you give a specific name in order to refer back later, it's hard to digest if the reference later recalls the wrong name....

I disagreed with the approach to eliminate the last necessary condition "not just based on the value". B and C relied on the contrapositive of the this condition to see why they are wrong - they led to the opposite direction of the contrapositive of this necessary condition to trigger the contrapositive of the original sufficient condition.

I don't quite understand why "or....but not both" would an indicator for bi-conditionals

I'm one of the confused group about question 3. When there is a "the" in front of "only", it is a sufficient condition indicator, but if I get rid of "the", it becomes necessary condition indicator. So if this sentence is "Only oral myths that have survived are the ones those were eventually written down.", Lawgic would be written down-->survived? This doesn't make much sense to me bcs those two sentences sound the same to me.

Hardest example for me to perceive so far: Jedi....

To me, A is trying to confuse contrapositive in causal logic being valid, not entirely irrelevant.