@arose The stem asks you to analyze Barbu's view. The quote is stating Barbu's perspective on how these dramas represent Greek society. That doesn't mean it has to align with reality.

D is correct because "accurately reflects" is basically synonymous with "proof of the emergence" in his quote.

He assumes that these dramas accurately reflect phenomena occurring in Greek society as a whole and bases his analysis of ancient Greek dramas on that assumption.

MacNeil: There's no way I can afford to buy a PIECE of this collection because the collection as a WHOLE is super valuable.

Friend: Bro, there's a flaw in your reasoning. Just because the whole thing is valuable doesn't mean there aren't affordable paintings in there. Go find one!

Whole to part flaw.

A - not a flaw.

B - not a flaw.

C - flaw. whole to part.

D - part to whole flaw.

E - part to whole flaw.

C is correct.

The stem says "MacNeil's argument" so you just read what MacNeil says and ignore the rest. You can actually ignore everything outside the quotes and get this right.

I got this right in 19s by eliminating all the wrong ACs using shallow dip, finding that they all contained comparative statements. The stim does not contain a comparison.

A - not comparative. Could be right.

B - "perform as well as." Wrong.

C - "more often loses than wins." Wrong.

D - "more on left than right." Wrong.

E - "twice as big as they were." Wrong.

Reread A - contains the only statement, and an obvious alt hypothesis. Gotta be it.

This question specifically can be broken down simply with logic. I don't think you need a thorough understanding of causal vs. conditional to work through it.

But in general, you can read this causal stim as:

"If a thing is to happen, then it requires this thing to cause it."

Whereas a conditional stim might read something like:

"If an object looks like plop, then it must be a blorp."

But for this question, just use simple arrows and you can get it right:

p: Healthy Bones -> Calcium

c: /Healthy Bones -> /Calcium

This is flawed because nec/suff confusion. The only valid inference is the contrapositive /Calcium -> /Healthy Bones.

AC B:

A cake must (nec) contain the right amount of flour in order to (suff) taste good. It therefore follows that cakes that do not taste good do not contain the right amount of flour.

Taste Good -> Right Flour

/Taste Good -> /Right Flour

Bingo, the flaw pattern matches the stim. Right answer. I didn't even once consider causal vs conditional.

@LayalBazzi4 yeah I got it -57s this way.

Once you read D as having two separate sets of photographers, E is the obvious pick.

I haven't watched the video yet, but...

You can narrow this down to A and D by looking at the Premises in the ACs and matching to the form of the stim.

stim = All, Most

A - All, Most

B - Most, Most

C - All, Some

D - All, Most

E - Most, Most

So A and D match the form of the stim at the premise level. Now to choose between the two.

stim: HB -> HF -most> 2S

A: L -> P, L -most> Run, C: P -most> Run

D: L -> PS -most> /Run, C: L -most> /Run

The first half of A already means it's wrong, even without the conclusion. The chain from the stim is not there, so you can just pick D and move on.

D matches the form of the stim. Correct!

This may not work for all parallel Qs, but it did for this one!

I haven't watched the video yet, but...

You can narrow this down to A and D by looking at the Premises in the ACs and matching to the form of the stim.

stim = All, Most

A - All, Most

B - Most, Most

C - All, Some

D - All, Most

E - Most, Most

So A and D match the form of the stim at the premise level. Now to choose between the two.

stim: HB -> HF -most> 2S

A: L -> P, L -most> Run, C: P -most> Run

D: L -> PS -most> /Run, C: L -most> /Run

The first half of A already means it's wrong, even without the conclusion. The chain from the stim is not there, so you can just pick D and move on.

D matches the form of the stim. Correct!

This may not work for all parallel Qs, but it did for this one!

@JohnLanza Think of each stage of the trip as a road crossing. Each road crossing, you roll a survival die. The more times you roll the die over time, the higher the probability you will roll a critical failure (hit by car, die in outerspace).

The author's argument depends on breaking the trip into stages where it is not "100% safe," but "quite unlikely to die." So each stage carries risk. Each time you go through a new stage, the higher the probability that you do not survive.

@OwenTrela for sure! Always good to practice diagramming in addition to building the intuition and using other tools we've learned like POE.

Sometimes I use POE to narrow down choices, then diagram or mental diagram to get the right one out of those.

@CYS1123 simply because they were not stated. The critic is not challenging the professor's assumptions, they are challenging the professor's statements and specifically addressing the conclusion.

Lesson in vocab in the middle of a lesson on MoR. Nice.

@epayne17

PSA = helps to justify

SA = justifies

PSA strengthens but does not guarantee the conclusions proper inference.

SA guarantees the conclusion is properly inferred.

Seems like the variable for you is testing among others? Maybe you should go to a coffee shop or other busy place with lots of stimuli and do some PTs. Train yourself to get good in any conditions and the test room will feel like nothing.

@Kaileavesley luckily this isn't a final exam! Go back through the modules, drill often, and dig into the specific pieces that don't feel intuitive until they do feel intuitive.

If you feel you're plateauing, take a couple days off! It's amazing how much progress you can make by just stepping away from the work for a short time. Your brain processes information, you come back fresher, and more often than not you'll have breakthroughs.

@Kg7 I almost always watch the videos to internalize the way JY thinks about the questions. I always get something out of it, especially if I'm on an roll answering intuitively. But I do watch them on 1.2 or 1.5x speed.

The thing that takes the most time is analyzing each wrong answer choice and figuring out why exactly it's wrong, but it feels like the most important step in the process.

1. Answer as intuitively and efficiently as I can

2. BR for my explanations and catch any mistakes

3. Watch video sped up

4. Drop in comments. Helping others understand helps me understand even better.

That's the process I'm falling into but it's taking a lot of time per day...

@Kevin_Lin since I'm also a bit stuck on B even though A is clearly the correct choice -

What if we added on to the principle something like "...if the act saved someone's life; but not otherwise." Would that take care of B? Does that give us the flip that if those 3 suff conditions aren't met, then Penn should not be awarded?

I got it down to A vs B but could not for the life of me choose which one was best, so I picked B, then A in BR.

I think in this case, if you start thinking too hard you start making more and more assumptions and it's easier to mix up suff/nec in your head and maybe even interpret the conclusion incorrectly.

IRL, I would argue B would absolutely be correct. Penn should not get the award. He did not exceed. If he made fuss about not getting the award, everyone would ask him to take a deep breath and have a nap.

A is the better and clearer answer, but it's super hard to fully eliminate B because the application of the principle IRL means Penn is not getting that award, try again next year.

BUT my reasoning leads to a different conclusion. The conclusion B is getting at is "Officer Penn DID not receive an award." If he did not receive an award, then he must not have met a sufficient condition for R2.

That's the trick...

Tried hard to trust intuition and move a little faster on this one. B felt correct as soon as I read it, but I kept going and got tricked into D. For some reason B started to feel like it was mixing up conditions. As soon as I got to BR, I realized this is not hard conditional reasoning because of the "likely" aspect, so B is very clearly correct. Need to remember to soften on conditionals when the stim is written in this way.

Without lawgic, just thinking it through.

These are the only two types of tools that are used for etching. All of one type is used for engraving. Some of the other is used for engraving. In order for there to be more used for engraving than not, the two types have to exist in the same quantity or the "some" tools have to be fewer in number.

Scan ACs for one of those two options, looking for -

Pin Tipped more than OR equal to Bladed

AC B. Equal to.

@imbobe29 I think another way to think of it is AC C gives an alt conclusion:

Good Life -> Rule of Law

AC B is the correct sufficient assumption for both of the conclusions. AC C is incorrect because it is not a sufficient assumption for the argument in the stim as written.

Each piece of the stim is the same structure, with the conc as the first claim supported by 2 more starting at "for..."

This not without this. So we negate sufficient each claim the same way.

P: Individual Freedom -> Social Integrity

P: Good Life -> Social Integrity

C: Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law

So we're probably looking for something that gives us:

Individual Freedom -> (Social Integrity) -> Rule of Law

It's also nice that most ACs are negate sufficient as well! This makes the analysis pretty straightforward.

A - suff/nec condition confusion.

B - Social Integrity -> Rule of Law. Correct, as predicted. This fills in the gap perfectly, and even with the same structure as the rest of the argument. Nice.

C - Good Life -> Rule of Law. Does not help with the stim's conclusion at all. In fact, it is an alt conclusion for the stim that AC B would make valid. It's a different question altogether.

D - suff/nec confusion. Prevails feels like a weird word choice here as well, but idk.

E - suff/nec confusion. It actually directly contradicts the conclusion in the stim, so it's egregiously wrong.

For answer choice C -

Our stim gives us a conclusion:

Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law

AC C gives an alt conclusion:

Good Life -> Rule of Law

AC B is the correct sufficient assumption for both of these conclusions. AC C is incorrect because it is not a sufficient assumption for the argument in the stim as written.

@JessicaVerdugoLopez You are confusion the suff/nec for social integrity and individual freedom. They run in parallel.

Individual freedom -> social integrity

Good Life -> social integrity

They are 2 separate chains. You just got lucky with your mistake.

@DakshMalik

For the sufficient assumption, we don't need ind freedom because it's already established in the stim. We just need to bridge social integrity to rule of law to complete our chain.

@SantiagoYanez Are you wanting to see the question before watching the video? If that's what you want, you can click on the "show question" button under the lesson title before watching the video.

@AustinSanchez yeah.

IRL analogies make things feel more intuitive, but get used to not thinking in reality as much. Think about what the question is giving you.

Take this as true: If you are in your bedroom, then you must be in your apartment.

Then this is confusing the suff/nec conditions: If you are in your apartment, then you must be in your bedroom.

In the world you made, the only acceptable logic is -

Bedroom -> Apartment

/Apartment -> /Bedroom

Unless you live in NYC, then your apartment is also likely your bedroom. lol

But the stims will not always operate in reality/intuition. You have to live in what the question is telling you is true. If it says that it is true that all bananas are blue, you have to live in that world.