This was my reading as well

Couldn't properly infer it so I used the trick our fellow commenter's lawyer friend suggested (look for the AC with language directly from the stim) to get A when I stuck with A, D, and E... In this case the language was "acquisition".

E could be true, but because is a "properly drawn" question we must find the one that MUST make the conclusion true. One problem with E is that it doesn't say that Franklin performed an act that 1) exceeded reasonable expectations and 2) saved a life with that specific act. This is what the rule in the stimulus requires.

Instead it leaves open the possibility that Franklin:

1) exceeded reasonable expectations by calling a chronically truant high-schooler every night after his shift to encourage him to go to school

AND

2) saved a life when he put his arm in front of a small child who was going to run into a busy highway chasing a ball.

To be considered for the award Franklin has to do something like jump into rushing waters from a flash flood to save someone from drowning. Which both A and B say he did.

And then you have to eliminate B because B doesn't rule out the possibility the Penn saved someone AND exceeded reasonable expectations at another time during the year (maybe he ran into a burning building to save a grandma). We don't know. So it can't be "properly inferred".

Answer choice A can be properly inferred.

Update: yeah your takeaways helped me explain the very next question to myself initially the same way that JY went on to explain it in explanation video.

I like don't fully fully understand what you're saying but I think your explanation is definitely helping me move in the right direction conceptually

I am seeing the same stimulus and ACs, but different question stems. My hunch is that JY likely changed the stem in his video explanation to emphasize the similarities to "weaken" questions.

I was today years old when I learned that one can use the verb "obtain" without an object to mean "prevail". The more you know lol

I've spent like minutes on the last 4 questions hahaha. I'm hoping I'm passively reinforcing my understanding of argument structure or something

represent!

My reading of this one is that it does not have to address all of the premises because it cleanly establishes a rule we need to get to the author’s conclusion: that what the child did was wrong.

This rule he suggested was so effective/efficient that it only needed one premise to do the job.

Yeah the chronology you mention is why I decided C was the better answer. I understood it that:

If Hagerle HAD to apologize to both of them, the counselor either a) would be happily awaiting her expected apology or b) she would have been apologized to already, precluding the whole situation and her concern.

Yup pretty much

same. this question was probably way harder 10 years ago lol

A ‑m→ B

A ‑m→ C

B ←s→ C

He's just saying that A has to be on left (sufficient side) of both of the 'most statements' to draw a valid 'some statement'.

Thus, when you write out the symbolic logic you can just use /Irr Reasoning -> Pfs instead of RR -> Pfs and it has the same meaning. (I think).

JY did this translation in his head instinctively and didn't justify it.

Yeah I also feel that based on my understanding of LR you shouldn't assume "irrational" that "NOT rational".

Like "cold" is not equal to "NOT hot" ... there are lots of other states.

Unless literally that's the definition of irrational... looked it up. Google says:

Irrational:

1. not logical or reasonable.

Rational:

1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

So maybe in this particular case the words themselves are actually true binary opposites. But I think that the habits that made us want to write "NOT irrational" will serve us in most other cases.