I just talked to a Big Tobacco lawyer and they said it was E 🤷‍♂️

Struck out D because I thought that the hospital staff would still get exposed to the bacteria when transferring the laundry from the washer to the dryer. Tell me I'm wrong!

Is it generally strategic to skip parallel reasoning questions and return once I finish the section since these questions generally take longer?

I'm the type of person who really understands what I am reading by actively annotating and writing in the margins. However I'm unsure how I can "write in the margins" with the online format. Any suggestions?

Hi Kevin! Loved your youtube videos. Looking forward to learning from you through 7Sage!

#feedback quick view for drill questions please!

lol what are you smoking

for those who might be curious about what the formal name is for this flaw, it's called "affirming the consequent".

In case you guys didn't hear: the name of the game is speed.

this might be a silly question but is there like a formal process JY uses to circle words in the stim? i want to know why he chooses to circle those particular words.

#feedback

This question is tagged as MSS, but the explanation video identifies and approaches it like an MC question. Is this an MSS question or is it mistagged as one?

Question: what does "setup" refer to when I look at the time allocation distribution on questions? does that refer to how long i should read the passage for? i.e. if it says "setup 1:55", does that mean I should eventually aim to read the passage in 1:55 minutes?

The way that I thought about the opera example in my own terms:

Most NBA players can dunk a basketball, and most people who are not NBA players cannot. Therefore, it seems likely that since I can dunk, I play in the NBA.

1- There are very few NBA players in the world. Just because I can dunk doesn't offset the very low statistical probability that I am an NBA player.

2- There are plenty of other people who can dunk but are not in the NBA (e.g. college basketball players or retired NBA players).

Is it possible to read the opera singer example as a case of affirming the necessary condition? My work is below.

In Lawgic:

CTOS = Classically Trained Opera Singers

RMW= recite Musetta's Waltz

a=Anna

(1) CTOS ‑m→RMW

(2) /CTOS ‑m→/RMW

(3) aRMW

---

(4) aCTOS

The way I read it, the conclusion (4) is drawn from using (3) to affirm the necessary condition of (1). That's a fallacy.

The valid conclusion would be a/CTOS, which uses (3) to deny the necessary condition of (2).

Let me know if this is correct?

Confused on 11. The lesson on "few" explains how we should be translating "few" into two statements: one with "←s→" and one with "‑m→." The answer only includes "‑m→". Why is there no translation into "←s→"?

I think something cool for study breaks would be quotes from the feedback of various students rather than just one. Assuming you have some database of feedback from students related to RC, compiling those inspiring or positive quotes and making a study break out of it would be nice to read!