as someone who started studying after logic games were removed, how do you solve sequencing games? if this shows up on the test I'll be able to solve it but it will just take 20 mins #help

@Livtpmartins Hi! Not sure if this helps, but in the stimulus, threats to the national identity are a little different than the social problems. We are trying to weaken the idea that modern culture threatens national identities. What is the evidence for this? Fringe movements are increasing. When the evidence is laid out like this, it's easy to see how wide the gap is from the evidence to the conclusion (Fringe movements (X) are increasing, therefore modern culture (Y) threatens national identities (Z)). The commentator is assuming that fringe movements are a part of modern culture, and that these two things are threatening national identities. We don't really even have any evidence that fringe movements are related to modern culture at all. And if these two things are not related, we for sure don't have evidence that modern culture threatens national identities.

B is right because if a stable national identity consists of lots of subcultures, then we know that these subcultures don't have to threaten the national identity, this weakening the argument.

E is wrong because if true, it doesn't move the needle on the argument. Knowing that a solid national identity tends to have more social problems just lists a problem for countries with a stable / solid identity. The argument is focused on the gap between the premises and conclusion. Its different than B because B gets directly at the subcultures (fringe movements) that are mentioned in the evidence. The social problems mentioned in E don't directly get at the gap between the premises / conclusion. The issue is not social problems in general, the issue is that the commentator thinks that subgroups forming in a country threaten national identities.

B is right because if the specialists are making accurate judgements, then it confirms the need for the drugs. If B is true then we know that the drugs have a reason to be there.

C is wrong because being completely healed is not relevant to this argument. I picked C because I thought that if drugs and PT could 100% heal at least one person, then it reconciled the part of the argument that says "only as well as". I was focusing on the wrong part of the argument when selecting this answer. Argument is mainly concerned with reconciling "How come these people need drugs + PT but these other people only need PT, and the drugs are important?" and not "How come the combination of drugs and PT makes patients only do as well as those who receive PT alone?" C is focusing on the wrong paradox, B is focused on answering the correct question.

For those struggling with B, I felt stupid getting this wrong too. B is wrong because we don't have the causal reasoning in the passage necessary to prove this conclusion. If you diagram the last sentence we have dismissed -> undermine, which would contrapositive to not undermine -> not weaken. This is not what B says at all, B could be diagrammed to public debate -> strengthen public faith. These two ideas aren't related when broken down, even though they seem like they are the same topic. Additionally, if we follow the logic presented in the last paragraph, one person's opinion being dismissed within the "public debate" mentioned in B would make it so that the public faith is weakened, not strengthened. This loophole in B makes it wrong. C is a much better final sentence because it gets at the idea that each person's opinion matters to the system's functioning as it is supposed to.

For those struggling with the video / written explanations;

B is analogous to characterizing the piccaro as the trickster, when deeper understanding shows it actually to be related to moral lessons (instead of satires). If you miss the detail of picaros being involved in satires, and tricksters being involved with moral lessons then B will not make sense because there is an extra category at the end.

D is wrong because it has two categories, pine trees and evergreens. The subject at issue is a SPECIES OF PINE TREE. For this to be right, the passage would need to be talking about a TYPE OF PICARO. For example "a type of picaro is classified as a type of trickster even though its related to satire". This isn't the author's view. We are talking about the actual broader categories of picaro and trickster, not the subtypes. Think about LR and sufficient / necessary. The author isn't trying to say that being associated with moral stories is sufficient to being a trickster, there are other characters involved in moral stories that may or may not be a trickster. Also, being related to satire isn't the only difference between the two answers. B is much better because it doesn't hinge on just one difference, it says "deeper understanding shows it to be related to the raccoon" but that could be because of any number of reasons so it is a better match to the author's view.

A is wrong because the conclusion is only about male cats, not all cats. It can't weaken the argument about male cats since A is about female cats.

interested!

@ChristyBee you’re welcome! :)

For those struggling with A, this is how I narrowed it down to C from a 50/50. I asked myself what is this Columnist trying to prove? That it is best TO take a strong opinion or NOT TO take a strong opinion. The Columnist is trying to prove that we should NOT take a strong opinion (conclusion in the last sentence indicated by thus). A is trying to support that it IS reasonable to take a strong position, which is different than what the stimulus is trying to support. C is trying to support that we should NOT take a strong position on something, which aligns more closely with what the conclusion is trying to prove in the Columnist statements.

This PMO bc being caught in a fire probably isn't voluntary, even if becoming a firefighter as a career is