Very helpful explanation!

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

I like this guy's breakdowns.

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

When did you begin studying? I am debating holding off until August to take the exam because the games are easily my worse section... I seem to be on a very similar timeline to you, and I am very in the middle. Would love to hear your reasoning or chat.

Good explanation. For some reason, I understood this one right away.

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!

Even if doctrine 2 does allow for economic explanations in addition to psychological explanations, this does not really matter. We would need another necessary assumption, but since we already found a necessary assumption to prove this argument correct, we are fine.

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.

Thank you for this response. I think the question type threw me off. Your answer helped me realize this was the case!

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

Thanks!

#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 am in the same boat as you. I can easily figure these out during BR when we have time to map them out, but when the clock is ticking, I make silly mistakes. I think practicing mapping out these somewhat complex chains is the best way to get better and make these feel more intuitive.

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.

This was my exact thought process. I think these last few lessons have really helped me see the difference of sufficient and necessary conditions, and when these two are confused with each other.

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)

So annoying. Did the same thing. Such an easy question once you know the meaning...

3 years late but this is how I arrived at the correct answer!