@mahi0615 essentially all this lesson is saying is if necessary, ignore sufficient conditions that aren’t relevant. But this is a double edge sword because like what the lesson showed, you could have a question that talks about “London” yada yada. And that should clue you in that you’re in NYC. Honestly this lesson is counterproductive. Ignore conditions but not ignore conditions? That just takes more brain cycles to track overall.

@elena That was the first part, it is not stated that it was the attempt, the only attempt, or the last assassination attempt. Secondly there is nothing to state her actual course of action. There is nothing stating she will be giving a speech in the first place. A very lazy way to try to make it work (but fail) is using contextualized inference which usually leads us down the wrong logic path.

@TobiStein I would second your argument. The statement should have used a better qualifier like "national" or "cabinet" officials because I'm quite sure the far vaster number of politicians holding local/state office aren't going to cause a traditional revolution. I really don't like "contextualized inference" as they present imo, lazy assumptions.

I would also sum it up by saying, only focus on the sole claim presented. Do not extrapolate meaning that is not explicitly stated.

@RazanTadros 7Sage needs to redo this lesson with this kind of context and adversarial perspective. Suffice to say, a lot are confused by the insufficient Kumar explanation.

@MatthewGhebredingle Correct. In my head cannon, its superfluous.

I think it’s important to emphasize here if we want to emphasize suspending common belief for the test. I think we all need to understand that no matter the argument we need to run with it. Say for example we do the negating statement of “elephants feed more in the winter than in the summer.” Okay, whatever let’s assume those premises and claims are true…

@MRod Likewise, put simply the other choices were too convoluted to make any sense.

@AlexB33 I agree, most of the answers can be debated for longer than it would take to simply identify the theme and message of the phrase.

@Ryo Where's my pg13 disclaimer.

Seems like the more fanciful and mind-bending assumptions could just be chalked up to being weak. However, the nuance associated with "what is reasonable" has yet been explained or expanded on. My issue is where does the buck stop when applying what is "reasonable" i.e. what your "average" person coming off the street would say. All notwithstanding most people off the street can't identify countries in the Middle East.