Instead of negating into a some statement, to avoid confusion, can I just leave the logic translation as "not all?"

I don't know if this is the best way to do it, but I go into obsolete mode and download from there.

After switching to syllabus V2, I miss these types of videos. I feel like this would be a 10+ minute explanation in the new version. I like both, however.

Less likely to abandon cars = more likely to owners to notice = more people to get convicted

A lot of assumptions but clearly the best answer choice!

Here's my thought about this question. Maybe it will help me understand it better if I write them out. If anyone is reading this, take it with a grain of salt.

The first doctrine only says, "The explanation of any historical event must appeal to economic factors." Does this statement prevent historical explanations from appealing to economics AND psychology? I don't think so.

The second doctrine attempts to explain ALL events in psychology. Therefore, economic considerations are barred from this doctrine.

The conclusion is that both doctrines are wrong because there ARE events that can be explained by both economics and psychology.

Right away, doctrine 2 is proven false. It is saying there are economic and psychological explanations which this doctrine does not allow for. But what about doctrine 1? Well, remember what I said before: Doctrine 1 only says you must have an economic explanation but leaves room for a psychological explanation.

If we take the negation of answer choice A, then the first doctrine would NOT preclude any noneconomic explanations, allowing for the chance to be both a psychological explanation and economic conclusion and, therefore, directly contradict the conclusion and ruin the argument. In other words, we need to answer choice A because it clarifies that doctrine 1 explains historical events SOLELY in economics, which now forces the conclusion that both doctrines are false to hold true because we see an event that can be explained by both economics and psychology, which goes against what doctrine 1 says with its new clarification.

I know my wording is super confusing, but simply put, doctrine 1 is ambiguous regarding other explanations than economics, and answer choice A eliminates this ambiguity and forces the argument to be correct.

The old reliable. Sufficient vs Necessary confusion. Got me here for sure.

#feedback This is not related to this question, but is there a resource on 7Sage where we can practice translating conditional statements? I am pretty decent at writing them out on paper, but I struggle to do them solely in my head. I think having some statements to translate with answers, not necessarily from a PrepTest, would be super helpful!

I like this guy's breakdowns.

JY - thank you for explicitly explaining shallow dipping. I would have spent at least double the amount of time on this question if it were not for your explanation.

deleted

this one broke me... time for a break.

Anyone else beginning to realize they do not have a strong grasp on sufficient vs necessary as previously assumed?

FW → WQS and WAC

(If Flaw is a Weaken Question then you must have Weaken Question Stem and Weaken Answer Choices)