To break down the negation of A further...

The original lawgic of AC A: helpful warnings → (speaking → increase risk)

To negate a comparative statement, you need to essentially deny the relationship between how helpful warnings and speaking to a driver → increasing their risk of accidents. To do that, you would need to remove the arrow (→) with an 'and,' and negate the necessary.

Negated lawgic of AC A: helpful warnings and not(speaking → increasing risk)

The original argument is that driving while talking on a cell phone significantly increases the risk of accidents, in comparison to that of talking to a passenger, as the passenger can give helpful warnings. AC A is the gap between the premise and the conclusion, as it shows how not having helpful warnings increases the risk of accidents. However, when you negate AC A, it removes that relationship away, saying that not having helpful warnings does not increase that risk, thereby ruining the argument.

So it's not the case that all SA and NA questions have flaws in them. Most often they don't - the "flaw" is that they're not making the argument strong enough due to this missing link. In this case, there wasn't a missing link at all within the lawgic - if you link all the conditionals up, it becomes a valid argument. The "missing" link was just stating that it's a sound argument, and that's exactly what AC D does.

For weakening questions, you want to look for an alternative explanation as to why something is correlated to the other. In this case, the stimulus concluded that psychological factors could cause heart disease. However, correct AC E gives us an alternative; in this case, physiological factors as a cause of heart disease.

Be sure to read carefully during the actual exam!

Ask yourself, 'what if' there was another explanation to articulate why there was an increase in worker safety after 1955? What if the cause of increased worker safety is not due to legislation?

Will we go over assigned problems in this class?

Interested as well! Thanks for your offer :)

You need to bridge the conclusion to its premise. How did it make that jump assuming that ‘all transgressions ignored the welfare of others?”

LSAC plays so dirty

not sure if they discord is open, can I still join? I'm interested!

Interested, mornings and nights work!

loool referential phrases here got me. We are supposed to attack Helen's justification, not Mark's argument.

D is better for weakening questions rather than describing the flaw

Interested!

this question reminds me of Necessary Assumption questions, where you want a conclusion that captures the main point but, if it weren't true, it'd wreck the argument. E was super lowkey in its wording.

Interested!

has anyone made a quizlet for this? :) #help

interested!

You can also view B as the right answer by revisiting advanced logical indicators. The sufficient and splits; TG → O and I, and O and I are independently necessary for TG to be sufficient. When you don't have either O or I, you deny the sufficient.

so confusing because we are always told to not bring in outside assumptions. but this wasn't easy to solve without the help of econ 101

very cookie cutter question; reminds me that I need to review the valid argument structures again

D is the correct answer choice as it completely blocks alternative explanations for the conclusion.

what is the fraction exercise that JY is doing here? I understand the bulk of it is lawgic, but I haven't seen a question where he draws out a "fraction" and adds the lawgic portion on the "numerator" and conclusion in the "denominator. Any help on where I can find this tactic? #help