THANK YOU - this was a great explanation. I didn't catch the nuance of average. This makes a lot of sense, I was so confident on a/c B because "alternative cause that brings about the same outcome." but because the conclusion is not a cause and effect statement this wouldn't be appropriate

alternative cause that brings about the same outcome? isn't that a valid way to weaken a cause and effect argument? I was between B and D and ended up choosing B

#help (Added by Admin)

I chose a/c D because the first thing I honed in on was the #s - % Flaw. I interpreted "profit was smaller" as in the net gain was smaller in comparison to the prior year. so last year we had a profit of $100 but this year it was $50 but that doesn't mean the total revenue generated was smaller. Looking back now I see my thought process was flawed and that total revenue is completely irrelevant b/c we're still comparing profits this year versus prior year.

with you - thats why I didn't choose D. I was stuck b/w B and D and was like there was only one "tenant".

i thought this flaw was taking lack of evidence, as evidence itself that small airlines were unsafe and choose B. But I see now that the issue is with "degree of safety"

by coming to the conclusion that it may be somebody else, doesn't that rule A out since it does consider that there was another joker?

#help (Added by Admin)

I dont know if it was the subject matter but this question really sucked up my time b/c the answer choices confused me

Interested as well! PT avg 169 and taking the exam in aug

ty for explaining offset bc I had no idea why you would offset by 50% and have an increased amount of pollution

not necessarily! JY was saying you can offset by 50% which isn't net 0.

Which, I don't even know what that means. I thought offset = 0 but apparently you can offset by 50%...So I reduced the pollution by 50%, I didn't know how you can be "+50" from an offset, can someone explain!

#help

funny thing is I chose E initially but felt like it was a trap b/c it was problematic so I changed to C. UGH

Did anyone else find this hard? Idk why I struggled w this....

Lawgic Translation (please correct if you disagree)

IDB ‑m→ SQKS → EOTO → C

_

EOTO

Flaw here is that conclusion is drawing an all encompassing statement, when the argument only warrants that the electronic outlet is turned on when a dollar bill is inserted

answer choice D demonstrates the same flaw:

RHN ‑m→ D → VI

_

VI

#help Can someone close the gap in my understanding for this solution. I get that there's this implied assumption that if Selena has PP, then PPP. Where does the assumption that if /SSP --> /PPP get made?? Can't someone else have psychic powers and she just not, who said she is representative of everyone's ability to have PP?

The explanation of If it's not true then it's false. Sure. But when you read the stimulus, I would have written my lawgic as: SPP --> PPP (contra: /PPP --> /SPP).

Basically, why would you write /SSP --> /PPP. Is it the true/false understanding. So if she doesn't have PP, then /PPP. Is it ok to just slap on negations to the sufficient and necessary? I have never seen this before...

#help initially chose B when I saw it was a conclusion question. Read the stimulus and then changed my answer to A b/c of the phrase "large scale"

Can someone explain why this is ok to ignore?

thought this q was interesting. essentially trying to see which of the other choices are also "hypocritical" (i.e. action would hurt member belong to that group)

I love this Q, i thought it was so clever!

Same! I eliminated C b/c they still knew about it

lmfao i needed this laugh

Hello! I'm interested as well! On the same schedule as you so most likely studying after 5:30PM :)