I loved the LR curriculum! As someone who had no prior knowledge on formal logic, I feel like everything was described in a digestible manner.

Feels like a huge step having completed the basics and now getting to apply it! Motivation renewed lol

I thought both A and B didn't weaken the argument because I thought "just because the symptoms weren't documented doesn't mean they weren't there." Now I realized I brushed over the word "many". That definitely weakens the argument a little, for sure more than B.

lol i was thinking if Mr. T is the owner he wouldn't have been the thief of something from his own property

Got this question wrong because I read too fast and though deer ticks were the exception to the rule that ticks drop after being fed to capacity, even though it never says this. Just spent hours doing resolve, reconcile explain questions so that's probably why lmao

Ah, I see. E was the only choice that resolved the doctors advice with the seemingly contentious fact that he is actually fatigued getting 4-6 hours of sleep.

A requires the assumption that people are willing to buy books they could have gotten with a library card before. But ig they all require assumptions.

I missed the "largely unaffected" in B.

Okay, so JY eliminated E because it is trying to solve the phenomena instead of calling out a flaw in the logic, but I still don't understand why that makes D the better answer.

D is correct because it explains how the NR studies are not generalizable to scientific studies in general.

E explains that dramatic stories might be the result of reporting itself instead of the studies themselves.

Both ACs talk about over-generalizing biased samples (aka news reports) to scientific studies more broadly, in my interpretation.

If we're only given information on news reporting before reaching the flawed conclusion presented in the stimulus, wouldn't it make sense to think the news reporting itself as what's distorting the data instead of the frequency of studies? Why does it make more sense to think that's the flaw instead of the reporting? Just because the stimulus isn't set up using causal logic?

Maybe my brain is fried and I'm just being slow lol. Any help on how E is trying to solve the phenomena in a way that isn't compatible with this question type would be greatly appreciated. <3

This example was confusing to me, but understanding the words "than" + "to" as referential is how I understand it.

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than some cultivars of corn are closely related morphologically to most other cultivars of corn.

Writing it in this manner makes it much more clear what is being compared, if this thinking is correct lol

Wouldn't an actor be more likely to know other actors' parts better than a mere observer? How do you know your que to speak if you don't have some understanding of other actors' lines?

This question would also require you to know that it was not common to have a copy of the play as an actor. You have to bring outside knowledge into this question either way (knowing that it is or is not common for the time period).

This may be a bad question, but couldn't you argue that the conclusion for #1 and #2 could also be a premise?

If blue eyes are determined by genetics, it does increase the liklihood of it being true that most people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes.

Of course, "blue eyes are determined by genetics" makes the most sense as a conclusion in this example, but if I relied purely on identifying a premise as something that provides support to something else, I feel like you could argue this could technically be a premise.

Just a question so I don't struggle identifying the conclusion on more complex examples. Thank you so much!

I missed "perhaps" and chose B. I also thought "except perhaps when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm" was the entire sufficient condition you negate before the necessary condition "it is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals".

So I not only missed that the exception may or may not really be an exception ("perhaps"), but "it is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals" is a conditional claim alllllllll on its own.

So obvious now!

This lesson was a great refresher on linking conditionals! I got the correct answer through POE because I could prove why the other ACs wouldn't guarantee the conclusion. I couldn't prove why D was right though, even though it felt like the only answer that could be.

I couldn't prove D was because I wasn't linking the 1st and 3rd premise together. POE was obviously a lot harder because of this too.

Lol love the feeling of improvement!

Chose A because I read "the only" (sufficient indicator) as just plain "only" (necessity indicator). Knew the difference and still didn't catch it! Note to self - read that word carefully lol!!!

I chose D first, then changed it to E. #help

I understand that E is wrong because Susan doesn't talk about self-expression and just spontaneity and innovation. In my mind I thought these could be related.

But

On D being right: I didn't think Lea made an opinion on types of work other than contemporary work. But what if an art gallery only has paintings from the renaissance and no contemporary work at all? She just says any art gallery would show you that contemporary work is "bereft" of creativity.

Then D would be merely consistent with Leah's opinion.

In my head I thought that demonstration "to the standard of all skeptics" was too strong a statement to be supported by Waller, but I killed that correct intuition!

What I'm noticing is that I sometimes convince myself an answer choice is right when I don't completely understand another (the correct) answer. Taking the extra second to put D in a contrapositive form would have made much more apparent as the right answer choice.

If you think an answer choice on MSS questions uses stronger language than in the stimulus, it probably does lol.

for some reason the explanations for this module leave me more confused if i got the question right lol

Got tripped up on this because I didn't agree with the answer choice and didn't think twice about eliminating it for that reason! Lesson learned

I initially wanted to chose B but stopped when I read D. I thought they were saying the same thing, so I rationalized a million other ways for the other answer choices to be true.

The lesson I'm getting from this--if you think two arguments are saying the same thing, make sure they're actually saying the same thing! Lol

I was originally stuck between D and E.

I chose D because I believed "costs" also captured non-monetary costs (a step up from only describing changes in the character of science as described in answer choice B). Even under this interpretation, as others have pointed out, "restrictions" does not encapsulate all "changes" that can be made to science. It is a subset of "changes". D also does not speak to the author's opinion.

I did not chose E because I thought inserting "before changes are made" into our conclusion was inserting an opinion the author did not explicitly state (but implied). This is my first drill and I thought I was somehow catching onto something tricky and technical (lol!!!!). I realize that this was wrong because it is simply true that you must consider the impact of changes before determining whether they are warranted. This is also the only answer choice that reflected an opinion.

Best way for me to broadly apply this mistake to other questions is that:

Conclusion is not an opinion = MP answer choice is not an opinion

Conclusion is an opinion = MP answer choice is also an opinion

Such a simple point that seems obvious now, but it cuts through some of the technicalities that I might take too much time parsing out on a timed test.

Okay, I did not chose C because in the previous lesson JY said 1) the correct AC must "end in the right place" (i.e., is the same conclusion/has the same meaning as the conclusion in the stimulus) and 2) that the conclusion must not be the sufficient condition. While this may (?) be true sometimes, I don't think it is reliable because the correct AC in this lesson broke both of these rules.

I think just knowing that the AC we're looking for will spit out the conclusion in the stimulus is the only way to go. Not much of a strategy because that's exactly what the question stem asks lolllll. Anyone else have another way of thinking about this question type?

i felt like NA questions were more intuitive to me and now AP questions are nottt coming as naturally.

so interesting to see what people's strengths and weaknesses are in these comment sections!

I chose A because I thought hunting both migratory and non-migratory animals would at least (very slightly) weaken the portion of the argument that concludes N must be nomadic because they're hunting migrating animals (if I'm even interpreting correctly lol). But I see now that C is the only answer choice that explains why they could maybe not be nomadic even if the teeth evidence seemingly suggests they are

LMAO I thought Jeff was saying fuck all animals because I read too quickly

"this proposal should be extended to all experimentation on all animals" lol I was like "okay I guess it's D then"

I understand that D is the best answer, but I got tripped up on its assumption that court evidence has to be 100% reliable. Sasha's specific issue is exaggerating reliability.

If something is only 95% reliable, is it really irresponsible to call it reliable if it still gives largely consistent results? (I obviously do think evidence should be 100% reliable, but this is often not the case in real life).

Maybe handwriting analysis will never be 100% reliable, but does that mean claiming any degree of reliability is irresponsible?

All this to say that is a reasonable assumption and does weaken the argument, but the phrasing of "exaggerating responsibility" (which Gregory's whole argument was responding to) threw me off.