search the practice test and questions online, powerscore has pretty in depth and valid explanations for answers if you feel that the answers/questions may not be explained as well on here

thought about it the same way too...i don't think so?

literally getting dunked on by these questions it's so not fun

44 minutes?!

I find the "Negation Test" tactic is really helpful in differentiating between NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT answer choices.

"hopefully this went well": 😟

"if not that's okay": 😞

i tried lol

it sounds kind of stupid, but I just started going at the questions with more intensity and tried to belief in my reasoning more instead of second guessing myself. Often times up until this point when I do the practice questions I take my time to make sure I'm covering every thought and carefully evaluating everything which was why I'd be too slow.

"this is a you suck a writing problem" took me out lmaooo

bruh

so true...I was thinking at first A wouldn't be the answer because I initially overthought and thought that "unlike balls thrown at a slower speed" was simply just differentiating between balls thrown at slower speed and balls thrown at fast speed xD

sometimes when I find it hard to focus on video explanations I just read and get through the lesson faster.

^^^

In explaining answer choice (E) at the very end, JY says "Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it CANNOT be understood." Is this a typo? Should it not say CAN instead of CANNOT, as choice (E) states "To mobilize large numbers of people in support of a political agenda, that political agenda must be presented in such a way that it CANNOT be MISUNDERSTOOD", which is a double negative and becomes "can be understood"?

#feedback

#feedback

I thought about it this way and it helped me make sense of this lesson a bit more:

using the rule from this lesson, "exactly half of A are B" is still a valid option as it satisfies the negation of "most A are B". As such, if we say "Few A are B", we take away the possibility of "exactly half of A are B" which is valid because this intersection is in fact NOT most.

I hope this helped and please let me know if I am thinking of this the wrong way.

this helped a ton, thank you

#help

for question 7, how come we end up using group 3 rules and not group 4? Additionally in contexts where there exists a "no" (group 4) and "without" (group 3), how would we know which one to choose?

Thank you for the help!

I think it's because after "whose", the rest of the information would just be modifiers for the subject: "the kingdoms". It is the subject then the predicate, and as such you would not include the modifiers into your translation.

If I didn't read wrong, this lesson is essentially saying that for group 3 there is no set sufficient or necessary condition, which is why we can choose whichever clause we want and negate it for it to become the sufficient condition?

#help (Added by Admin)

how come there is no contrapositive in 3.3?

#feedback

I think you missed the negation (/ symbol) before Alan in the lesson example, it's supposed to be:

"In Lawgic, the arguments would look like this:

J → F

A/F

A/J

"

If you are a jedi (subset, sufficient), then you use the force (superset/necessity).

Alan does NOT use the force (superset/necessity).

Therefore, Alan is NOT a jedi (subset, sufficient).

I think this is why you were confused, but please let me know if I answered wrong or mixed something up I don't want to cause more confusion. Hope it helped.

For me when I read "it is not much easier", I initially assumed the same thing. However I think it might be that the possibility of it still being easier, albeit not much easier, is still possible. As such because it's still potentially easier, that's why it is still easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species.