Just a heads up, "the only" is not a necessary indicator. It is a sufficient indicator.

Ah yes! Thank you! I was thinking like the premises could be any order but the way they link is what’s important

Thank you because this is the best explanation I've heard so far

How did you get the conclusion this way? technically answer A fits in the most, most, and all but we know it isn't right. Struggling with these so curious of a trick

#help -- any tips on not reading this as two separate conditionals? Because it was an A>b>c, I was looking for an A>B>C which few have because there aren't enough premises/conditional statements.

I had the same issue - sad to see no one gave an explanation

All his reasoning does is tell us why the other answers are wrong. There is very little explanation as to why this one is the same as pointing out a source attack which is quite frustrating!

Couldn't agree more - I am very confused

this got me this time

#feedback I am not sure why the difficulty doesn't slowly get harder. Having a chain of easy questions and then a super hard one like this just makes people feel dejected and stupid, which is not conducive for studying.

#feedback i dont think this sentence is written correctly: this shows that reading these label labels promotes proportionally less consumption of fat

(i think it repeats label mistakenly)

Colin has actually been quite helpful in the comment in the past. This is a weird take

#feedback why isn't the video above the written text like usual? I didn't know there was a video option but as someone who learns better with the video, that should be first as it usually is. Having it last made it seem like there wouldn't be one.

anyone have advice or an explanation on why the development would not be the reduction in staff?

Yes exactly!! You got it!

Doesn't that show that you've learned? I know it's frustrating, but I think it's a good sign. You're doing this to get better and obviously you have!

Lol me too -- I think though that really the learning from SA prepared us well to approach NA questions. i bet if you went back you'd be good at them (or at least better than before)

As I was writing out my response, I realized that the negation I had in my mind while taking it is too strong and doesn't reflect the actual negation. Don't typically is not strong enough to ruin the argument. Thank you for your response as this has really helped me better understand why A isn't the right answer!

So i am confused honestly because we were told that negating it would help to find the necessary assumption, but if you negate A, the argument is clearly impossible. Any advice on another trick to use considering this one screwed me here

Absolutely -- that is strongly implied by his written explanation!

exactly!! mapping here actually makes it harder -- also, i find that these are easier to decipher when thinking about it like puzzle pieces that need to be connected. Actually trying to semantically link the ideas is where I get lost

I think what's also important to consider here is the second rule ONLY gives us what is sufficient to win. If you save a life, you get the award. We do not have any conditions on how to not get the award. This one is hard because in normal conversation it is inferred that if you don't save someone, you won't get the award, but we know that logically, if you do x, you get y is not the same as if you don't do x, you don't get y (A>B is not equivalent to not A > not B). This is a case where the rules of logic do not coincide with how one would typically interpret the sentence which is what makes this particularly tricky

See this confused me at first too. but I think i get it now. we can do a contrapositive here, but we would get if you should do the practical joke, then it must not be contemptuous and you don't think it'd cause harm. so we know facts about the joke if you should do them, but, in this case, we have no idea what the sufficient conditions are for if you should do it. we have no conditional statement to provide reasoning for why you should, which is what he means.

as a scientist this one was rough because C-14 in soil very much comes from living things but we don't know that from the stim -- so hard not to bring in outside information ugh

its because in previous lessons the answer was to state the dissimilarity in the analogy. That is what D is doing.