I wrote off choice C because of how confusing the second half was. I mean, what is "mental illnesses manifest themselves in symptoms" supposed to mean? Apparently, it's mental illnesses presenting through specific symptoms.

For example, people from different cultures might experience or describe depression, anxiety, or other disorders differently. In one culture, depression might mainly manifest as physical complaints like fatigue or headaches, while in another culture, it might be expressed as sadness or hopelessness.

I gave up two questions ago and decided to skip the RC lessons a few days ago. Now I'm back and doing better at these NA questions, whereas I was getting most of them wrong before. I just had time to let it stew in my brain and let the frustration and feelings of failure die down a bit. The time away has given me new patience, and now I can tackle these with renewed energy. I recommend this strategy to anyone else feeling hopeless.

I interpreted E complete differently, nothing related to competition. I thought it was trying to be a counter-example to seed companies generally getting more sales b/c of the price situation. But the "early last year" part cautioned me that the large company could have gone out of business before produce prices increased, thus I eliminated it.

Not sure what to write in my wrong answer journal for getting something like this correct in the future. Keep a keen eye out for alternate hypotheses? It feels like you either make the right assumption or you don't. I hope doing more practice will fix this.

I couldn't guess this question's difficulty was only Level 1. I picked D when drilling, but then overanalyzed and changed my answer during blind review. (Note: Don't create drills that include level 1-2 and level 5 questions together.)

D's wording bothers me, as it flips the words' placement, therefore also the conditionals. Is there a difference between "stories that are somber and pessimistic can be well written" and "stories that are well written can be somber and pessimistic"? I wonder if the order matters here when diagramming them.

I'm not good at writing conditionals that lack indicators, so I'm looking to improve my understanding.

Ngl, I'm somewhat bitter that this lesson wasn't here from the start when I was learning SA months ago, but better late than never. Love to see 7sage constantly improving.

I've been staring at this question for a couple of hours now, and I think I finally get it.

Premise: It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefits outweigh the cost and difficulty.

Rule: Not acquiring such information is rational (/acquiring -> rational)

Tip: Be careful not to flip the conditions. I find it helpful when the sentence is structured like "A is B", as it indicates All A are B, so A -> B. But when the sentence structure is something like "It is x not to y", the is isn't between two conditions. So the lawgic placement is the opposite of how it is chronologically in the sentence.

Rule Exception: one expects that the benefits outweigh the cost and difficulty (expects)

Translation: If one doesn't expect that the benefits outweigh the cost and difficulty, then not acquiring such information is rational.

Lawgic: /expects -> (/acquiring -> rational)

Conclusion: Consumers (who do not bother to acquire complete detailed information) are thereby behaving rationally.

Lawgic: Consumers (who DNB) -> rational

All together:

/expects -> (/acquiring -> rational)

Consumers (who DNB) -> rational

So, apparently, "Consumers (who DNB)" is not the same thing as "/acquiring -> rational". Since we're talking about consumers for the first time and a specific subset of them to boot, "Consumers (who DNB)" should be viewed as a new element* that suddenly showed up in the conclusion. Whenever that happens, we know there's a missing link that requires us to bridge that new element to the premise.

B -> (C -> D)

A* -> D

When the new element is the sufficient condition within the conclusion, oftentimes the missing link is how the new element connects to the beginning of our premise chain.

A -> B -> (C -> D)

A* -> D

Missing link: Consumers (who DNB) -> /expects

Consumers (who DNB) -> /expects -> (/acquiring -> rational)

_

Consumers (who DNB) -> rational

Full premise translation: When consumers (who do not bother to acquire complete detailed information) do not expect the benefit of that information to outweigh the cost and difficulty, then not acquiring such information is rational.

Therefore, we can conclude that consumers (who do not bother to acquire complete detailed information) are rational.

I hope this makes some sense.

If more than half of group A (skilled artists) is in group B (good at abstract reasoning), and more than half of group A is in group C (famous), then there's no way to avoid some overlap between B and C. A cannot simultaneously fit two separate majorities without some members being in both B and C. So, some in group B (good at abstract reasoning) are also in group C (famous) and vice versa.

How would you use the negation test for this question? I confused myself trying to use it during blind review and ended up switching from the correct AC to D.

How do I avoid overanalyzing on low-difficulty questions like this? I picked B during the drill but, during the blind review, started to find the modifier sus. Like, if it contains no chemical agents that "are effective in treating painful joints," what about other chemical agents that were still used? The manufacturer said that chemical agents are unnecessary for the treatment, so would he use other chemicals? I don't know; it might not even be relevant to the question stem. But this kind of doubt led me to eliminate B and switch to a bad answer. Should I only be skeptical about modifiers if the choices are very similar to each other?

I picked A but switched to another choice during the blind review for the dumbest reason. Said stupidity led me to spend 5 minutes typing out my confusion about this question, only to realize where I got it wrong right after I published this comment. So, now, I'm editing this thing so no one sees my shame.

So, the ratio is just the percentage? Oh... I thought something like 1:100 for a large bird would be a big ratio when comparing the numbers to each other, and 1:6 would be small ratio.

In the original, full version of the question, Attila and Lushan are only called "the young man" and "the friend." Without the names, the stimulus suddenly seems more difficult to read. It's weird, but nothing new. Guess the need for grammar parsing isn't going away anytime soon.

I'm still confused about why the answer is choice C. Didn't the stimulus mention that the TMD shows no effects on human health when ingested? Albeit, the per capita amount blah blah blah. Are we supposed to assume that there may be harmful effects by eating more TMD than the average? Otherwise, it doesn't explicitly state that anyone has been harmed by ingesting the peaches, including children, so I thought that fulfills choice C's second necessary condition—that a pesticide is acceptable if it's "been shown not to harm any portion of the population." With all conditions met, the pesticide would be acceptable, and that's counter to the consumer advocate's argument.

#help

I picked E. Since it was the second most popular AC, I think it deserved more explanation for why it's wrong.

Robbins "does not understand it well enough to praise it" should map out as: praise -> understand. Because she can praise it only if she understand it well enough.

AC E would be: understand -> praise. It confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions.

If the conditions were in the right place, this might have been correct.

I didn't know what 'per capita' meant. I chose C during blind review only because I noticed that there was no mention of single persons in choice A, making it out of scope.

After parsing the grammar for choice D, it seems like the keywords were "at least as great". We only know from the stimulus that the temperature starts to get warmer as you go up in the stratosphere. So, is choice D trying to play it safe by using a phrase like "at least as great" regarding the temperature to fulfill the 'must be true' requirement? I hope I'm understanding it correctly.

Maybe it'll help to highlight keywords and phrases like this to mitigate the need to re-read so much on the science-heavy passages.

#feedback

Typo: "Now we can options."

Shout out to Jacob Walters for mapping out the arguments' lawgic and to jerbear_ for figuring out why it's sufficient-necessary confusion.