wait but shouldn't it be:

get question correct--> recognize right answer

get question correct--> eliminate four wrong answers

because these statements imply that these are the ONLY two paths to getting the question correct.

I get why E is correct, but if we're criticizing A for using correlation data that invites alternative hypotheses, doesn't E have the same problem? It is also correlation data.

For me, answer choice A was wrong, aside from the fact that it's paraphrasing the premise, not the main conclusion, because it's prescriptive (uses the word 'should') when the context in the premise is descriptive...is that correct?

But do you not have to assume that Travaillier listens to their industry consultants? And it also says "typically recommends", not always recommend. I feel like this is a worse assumption to make than the assumption for answer choice C which is that the new employees are not actually working on bus tours

#help So, the ‘Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions’ flaw is the same thing as the ‘fails to consider other necessary conditions’ flaw?

#feedback in the skill builders, this form appears quite a lot:

All As are Bs

All As are Cs

Therefore, some Bs are Cs.

Shouldn't this also be part of the list then?

we were told with the Goku analogy that the answer choices in weaken questions should be weakening the support that flows from premise to conclusion, rather than the premises or conclusion itself in the vast majority of cases. Would this be a case where the answer choices are weakening the conclusion directly? for example, the stimulus doesn't say anything about the ebola virus's host animals, but answer c is still considered to be weakening.

#help

I understand the explanation for the first part of "E: Either the price it pays for coffee beans will continue to increase or the Coffee Shoppe’s coffee sales will increase." And our causal chain doesn't say anything about coffee bean prices not increasing, so we can't draw that inference.

But don't we also have to consider the contrapositive? So like /coffee sales going up --> /coffee bean prices going up? And isn't /coffee sales going up similar enough to coffee sales decrease, which IS in our conditional chain?

#help isn't 'few' another intersection relationship?

#help

I don't get why answer a is right for question 16, because they spent the whole passage proving that most superior performers with extensive training DO NOT have exceptional innate talent.

So how can we say it would be impossible to do that?

wait is this a sufficient assumption question or a strengthen question?

Question 3- the explanation says "If we're being Lawgic nerds, technically it doesn't matter whether we follow the "no" rule (Group 4) or the "unless" rule (Group 3)." I understand how to follow the "unless" rule, but can someone please explain how to follow the "no" rule in this case?

So, we're supposed to assume that if there's no conditional indicator, that it's an all statement? #help

i'd love to join :)

#help I don't get JY's explanation for why B is wrong. i feel like B: "Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region." would be wrong even if it said 'more' fish instead of 'most' fish.

Because we simply can't make any inferences about before phosphorus levels doubled. The contrapositive of the conditional chain would be / few fish survive --> / oxygen loss --> /bacteria buffet --> /decaying plankton (floor) --> growth plankton (surface ) -->/2x Phos --> /Agricultural RO

So we still don't know what happens when 'before phosphorous levels doubled'. I guess the only thing we could say is that there would be no agricultural run off because if there's no 2x phos, then there's no agricultural run off, but we definitely can't say that before phosphorous levels doubled, more fish would be able to survive. Maybe there was never any fish to begin because a fish-eating bacteria killed them all.

So isn't jy wrong when he says this:

"What’s true of that time? If we follow our chain of consequences, we can say for certain that before the phosphorus doubled, less plankton growth, less decaying plankton, less bacteria buffet, less oxygen loss, and ultimately more fish survived vs. the present."

Couldn't we have also used a causal chain going from 2x #t to 2x speed?