Me too...is that even correct

ah fackkkkkk. I did this too fast and completely overlooked the region assumption. Am not having a good time.

exactly

For the most part I will never use lawgic to solve many of these questions because I find I get lost in the mechanics rather than actually understanding what the question is asking. I solved this without mapping anything

same lol

Flewwwww right over my head. Then realized if I took the contrapositive of B it followed what the stimulus was saying. I will say I tried to do the logic in my head so thats probably where I messed up.

you dont. i would skip lol

This was more confusing than it needed to be.

1. Map out the conditional,

If fewer than 50 ppl available for hire AND Dept duplicated more than 25% of material --> /proposal for a new department will be funded

2. Contrapose this statement

Proposal for a new department will be funded --> /fewer than 50 people available for hire OR /dept duplicated more than 25% of material.

As per De Morgens law, with OR in the necessary condition AT LEAST one (but possibly both) of the two conditions must trigger when sufficient condition is triggered. So in this case scenario, because the proposal for a new department was approved to be funded (sufficient condition triggered) and 25% of material covered in Area Studies department was duplicated, then the only plausible remaining answer choice would be A, that there is atleast 50 people avail. for hire, as this was the only remaining necessary condition left to be used.

Hope this is clearer.

hate, hate, loathe entirely

this was annoying

its not

Someone please correct me if my approach to this question was completely wrong. I got it right by matching the the flaw of the conditional statement from the stimulus to the answer choices, but I did not solve it like JY.

A → B

Law punishes littering → City has obligation to provide trash cans

Flaw in conditional statement:

A → B

Law does not punish littering → City has not obligation to provide trash cans

Answer choice D:

A → B

Flight late → Missed committee meeting

Flaw in Conditional statement:

A → B

Flight not late → Did not miss committee meeting

Both statements match the flaw in conditional reasoning which is A → B.

Did I solve this wrong?

#help

fmlllll

same

exactly

This would be a definitive skip for me. "Mastodon" "Human Projectile" and the geographic descriptions just flew over my head