Practice drilling NA but throw in a good amount of other question types. When you drill in a vacuum, it's easy to fall into breezing past the question stem because you anticipate it. Putting it up against other question stems back-to-back (any SA or PSA would probably be extra good for this) will force you to begin recognizing the differences

I get what you're saying, but I think that the very end of the stimulus introduces the conclusion that "thereby saving money", which opens up the critique of whether they're actually saving money. Therefore, it's within the realm of reasonableness to discuss installation and cost, as the very conclusion of the argument hinges on it being a good deal for these plants.

Just added this to my notes, thank you so much for posting this!

i'm gonna go take a walk

Looks right to me, big dog

This is an interesting way to look at it, and it really clears up my confusion. I appreciate you writing it all out for me to see, thank you!

That was a point JY made in the previous example (I think). MSS questions can be very similar to principle questions, but one of the main differences is that with MSS, the correct answer could be a narrow restatement of the stimulus in no generalized terms. But with principle questions, a narrow restatement would be incorrect since it requires a generalization. Hope this helps!

I am so frustrated.. I've gotten so many in a row wrong. Why am I not learning from my mistakes!!!

#help - Where did I go wrong here. I now understand why C is correct (I originally misread it) but I'm still struggling to understand why E is wrong.

I interpreted the stimulus to be:

accurate + curious → Good Journalim

I kinda ignored the part about high viewership, maybe this is part of my error.

I interpreted E to be:

/(accurate or curious) -> /Good journalism

Using DeMorgan's law, I took the contrapositive of the OG stimulus to be the same thing that E was saying.

Did I incorrectly translate something into lawgic here? Or is the takeaway that if the actual argument is present as an AC, then that overrules the contrapositive of the original argument?

Thank you! Glad to hear this strategy has been working for you.

So what should be my takeaway here if out of the past 4 practice questions, I've gotten three right only in the blind review portion? Should I focus less on speed and just read everything more carefully and not mind the clock?

This makes a lot of sense, thanks for the explanation!

Can someone please help me understand: Identifying a causal factor doesn't preclude other causal factors.

Identifying a causal pathway doesn't preclude other causal pathways.

Sometimes with a wordy stimulus like this, I find myself jumping to the last sentence and working backwards through the paragraph and that has seemed to help me dissect what is actually being said better. I am wondering if this strategy will ever come back to bite me?

I did this too and would also like to know the answer! However, based off JY's explanation, it seems like this is not the correct method.

No, this is flawed logic. If my understanding is correct, then this is why:

It is true that most well-designed public places feature artwork

It is also true that a coffee house is a public place

However, coffee houses are a subset of public places. Say there are exactly 100 public places in this universe, for most of them to be well designed, then 51 or more public spaces are well designed. Let's say in this universe, 70 are well-designed public spaces that feature artwork. Of those 70 spaces, there could be 69 well-designed coffeeshops that feature artwork, BUT there also could only be 1 well-designed coffeeshop. The remaining 69 public spaces could be a restaurant, a park, a bar, whatever. We just are not sure how many coffeeshops make up those 70 public spaces - that is why we can only say SOME well-designed coffeeshops feature artwork.

Remember this rule from a foundations lesson:

For inferences, all→(the arrow meaning implies) most

most→some

all→some

Most can only imply some, and the above explanation puts in perspective why that is. Hope this helps!

I got this right but after staring at my screen like a zombie for 10 mins... ugh.. If this is level 4 difficulty, I am very scared to see a level 5...

My opinion, which has been informed by my 2L friend at Columbia who did 7sage, is that I should get through the core curriculum and begin PTing after, as the schedule suggests. That's because I won't have all the skills to get through a whole PT yet, maybe some of it, but its almost a waste of time, since they are so long. It's up to you though! If you have enough study time to get through the suggested modules AND do a PT, then it certainly wouldn't hurt.

For me, depending on the statement, I find it easier not to think about which indicator word is being used, but instead I create the contrapositive statement and see if that makes sense.

For example, #3: lets say you flip the sufficient and necessary conditions on accident - highest flying bird → nests in the Andes, contrapositive being if does not nest in the andes → not the highest flying bird - I know this is incorrect because it assumes the highest flying bird ONLY nest in the Andes, which is not necessarily true based off the context given, so more logically it is nest in andes→highest flying bird

No, it can be whatever wording/notation makes sense to you, as long as you know what it means.