#help Can anyone explain if D is a valid inference?

If this was a good democracy, the bill would have been passed.

The second premise ends up being irrelevant.

Although JY didn't chain it up, we are looking for ( most favor + /violate rights -> passed ).

I'm usually pretty quick at MC questions and this time I got burned for it.

I immediately identified the conclusion and rushed through the argument, taking a slight pause on the last sentence because it felt like it could either be a trap conclusion or a major premise. It seemed similar enough to the MC so I scanned the answer choices for a MC / MP answer and never came back.

JY went about explaining this one perfectly. This argument is more or less structured with three separate premises all independently supporting the MC. Not all arguments need to have chained premises!

Such a freebie (I got it wrong). Argument proceeds by saying that because A is misleading, it will attract fewer viewers than B.

Based on this information alone, it must be that B is less misleading than A all else held constant.

Correct AC goes above the bar by stating that B is not misleading whatsoever, slam dunk.

D is wrong for more reasons than one.

The context already states that not all farmers are organic, so if D was "fixed" in the way JY suggests it would still be wrong, because it would be misrepresenting the conclusion to say "if not all farmers are organic (already true) -> all farmers are organic," overlooking the spread of organic farming bit.

I went cold turkey on drilling during the core. I recommend you treat all of the mini drills as timed tests (including the single question drills) and blind review everything before you move on.

Yep! Couple sheets.

For whatever reason this felt super difficult and I got it wrong in BR.

I think what's so hard about E for me is that it doesn't say much about the rapid rate of reproduction seen in species A, and I was psyched out by the idea that reproduction would be high in the presence of resource competition.

Maybe I should learn more about trees.

The argument proceeds by denouncing the truthfulness of a claim on the grounds that it triggers an implausible scenario. In order for the argument to stand, this relationship must be true. The correct answer choice narrows the scope of reality by providing a "principle" that connects the two ideas in discussion, confirming that the second idea is true only following the first. This not only reveals the link, but also suggests that there is no other way for this implausible scenario to occur.

It was hard for me to wrap my head around this one because we're thinking about an assumption that is necessary for the validity of an argument that appears contrary to the author's opinion as you're reading it.

We are trying to find our way to the conclusion that the disclaimer serves no purpose.

What we know at this point is that the only purpose of the disclaimer is to provide legal protection, so it seems that we should propose a solution where there is no need for legal protection. We also know that if the email suggests illegal activity, we lose all legal protection.

The correct answer creates a world in which absent the occurrence of illegal content in the email, there are no other reasons why the company would need legal protection and thus the disclaimer has no purpose.

Right answer is confirming that when the plant shuts down there is actually no dioxin in the water around the fish, strengthening the case that their hormonal variation is actually linked to the dioxin.

This reveals the possibility that even if they can easily return to normal hormone levels, the exposure to dioxin is still having an impact on them.

Great example of accepting the premise to be true while weakening the argument.

I love the curve for this question

Right before you begin the exam there will be a button to view in "printable view"

The wrong answer is wrong because the argument does not argue, got it!

@ Discord Link! https://discord.gg/aMnNwHyN3E

take as long as you need, friend. Your future self will thank you.

@ Discord link here!! https://discord.gg/zaPEzCn22s

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ will make a discord tomorrow, stay tuned!

girl when is tomorrow

crying

Working on it!

Forget about all the prep books. Go to LR drills, sort problems from easiest to hardest, and do every single weakening question. Then do every single strengthening question. Then every flaw question.

Read the question once, understand the inference being made in the premises (what do they mean in total). Then look at the conclusion. What is the conclusion supposing that the premises have not already explained? That is the gap.

The right answer is going to play on the difference between what the premises amount to and the little gap that is being unnacounted for. Do this for every problem and read them all twice.

Should take at least 10 minutes per problem.

Keep your head up, keep going.

cheeky one

Feeling smart because I didn't know that it was a common sense assumption that SP spoke english :)

@ I'm gonna start a discord for something exactly like this, potentially even NYC study meetups. Stay tuned, will drop a link tomorrow!

@ will make a discord tomorrow, stay tuned!

Took me 2-3 months of 10-15 hours per week. I pushed myself to move through it fast, wish I had taken more notes and reviewed more lessons throughout. Stay on the path!

The superset becomes more accurate than the subset in question after being corrected.

I came back to this after finishing the section and spent four minutes picking E.

:'-)