explanation for E is wrong--it says the referenced text is the conclusion. It's support for the conclusion. #feedback

@jzheng05797 i dont think it’s circular reasoning. Circular reasoning doesnt involve conditionals like it does here. CR is when the premise and conclusion both support each other. There is no new support or premise for the conclusion. It just restates the conclusion. For example, A is true, so B is true. How do we know B is true? Bc A is true. How do we know A is true? Bc B is true. So the argument is going in circles. On the other hand, when it’s confusing sufficient with necessity, there is a separate premise where it gives outside support that actually supports the conclusion. But the flaw happens when you say every time the conclusion happens, that premise will be true.

@khaliqlaiba yeah it's not just a backward chain. If people who believe that others distrust them, then they DO NOT trust, which is not what AC A says.

@7Sage Tutor I wish you answered the student's first question directly--AC A is not contradicting itself because stimulus just said the projectile didn't come from Eurasia CLOSEST to North America and concludes that it came from people on the other end of Eurasia farthest from North America (so still saying it came from somewhere within Eurasia, just not where it's closest to NA). AC A says projectile actually came from somewhere completely different--so this provides an alternative explanation and weakens the conclusion that it came from eurasia farthest from NA.

@babachanianaren905 this is a tricky one bc the stimulus is actually suggesting that there might not be a causal link between cholesterol and heart disease, although it does admit in the very beginning that the two are correlated. So the answer has to say that there might actually be a causal link between the two so the diets could work, which is opposite of what we normally do with these causal logic weakening questions since most of the times the causal logic questions assume that there is a causation, when it's just a correlation and we normally find an answer that says it's just a correlation. But here, we have to look for an answer that says there might actually be a causal relationship, which is what C says.

this is a tricky one bc the stimulus is actually suggesting that there might not be a causal link between cholesterol and heart disease, although it does admit in the very beginning that the two are correlated. So the answer has to say that there is might actually be a causal link between the two so the diets could work, which is opposite of what we normally do since most of the times the causal logic questions assume that there is a causation, when it's just a correlation and we normally find an answer that says it's just a correlation. But here, we have to say the two might be causally linked therefore cholesterol causes heart disease, which C states.

@sulthanataj86664I think the key here is understanding what's happening to the nests human put up. The whole point of doing that is so that ducks can lay their eggs there and help them breed there safely. But in fact it doesn't help them. Why? Let's say we (human) put up the nest right outside the lake where all the ducks can see. A female duck, let's call it duck A, spots the nest we put up and comes lay her egg there and leaves (thinking she can safely breed her egg there). Another female duck (duck B) is able to see the first duck (duck A) lay their egg and leave. So then duck B is like "ha, i see that female duck lay her egg there so I'm going to go to that nest and lay my egg there (remember the premise said ANY female duck would do this when they spot another female duck lay eggs and leave--stimulus calls this "parasitic" behavior). This phenomenon occurs until so many ducks do this and the nest is so full that only a few can hatch. Therefore, if the nest we put up (human nest) was put somewhere less visible to the ducks, this parasitic behavior of spotting other ducks leaving the nest and laying their own leg there wouldn't happen, and the first DUCK A would safely be able to hatch her egg in the nest we made, and we'll be able to say yay! we actually helped them with their reproduction efforts (laying and breeding her egg in our nest). hope this helps.

@mvmarras11534 if you treat this as a strengthening question (like the core curriculum said you could), you'll most likely think C is right. But I realized you can't do that with mss questions. You can add a new detail for strengthening questions, but for mss you can only use what's given.

#feedback I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the outlier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.

I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the oulier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.

I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the oulier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.

I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand these lessons.

@Kevin Lin thanks for following up!

@antonioandolino wait they are????

@gracew hence, would sort of weaken because now hiring a long term economic develvopment adviser is no longer needed.

@addisonsub I think even if you correctly assumed that a smaller population and economy inherently made the payoff easier, and therefore you thought it correctly relies on the example that other cities that have a bigger popular and economy also had a payoff in the long-run, it wouldn't strengthen to say that the city is small because the whole point is that in the long-run, even if you don't see it now, the results will show. So in a way if you're saying the city is actually smaller, so the payoff will be easier/faster, that's sort of resisting the premise given. It's like "the whole investing in the long-run doesn't even matter here because our city is small anyways and will see results quickly, so we don't have to worry about investing in anything long-run."

I think explanation for E here has the wrong negation.