I wish logical reasoning questions would test me on my logical reasoning... not on my ability to decipher stupidly worded answers.

Would have got this correct if I knew what A meant. I had ruled out every other answer.

got it right, but the stim confused me like crazy. Why would I need to explain it? It seems like the stim explains itself.

If people are more likely to be caught stealing a car now than five years ago, then yeah... no DUH rates of car theft have declined?

To say that "it's more likely now than it was five years ago that someone who steals a car will be convicted of doing so" means that the rate of punishment has increased. If the rate of punishment for stealing cars has increased, then it makes sense that less cars are being stolen.

WHY does this phenomenon need an explanation? It explains itself?

got it right the first time!

... but it took me 9 minutes

"c" in this video, in statistics, is called the confounding variable: A variable that influences both a and b independent of each other.

correlation: as ice cream sales increase so do rates of drowning.

Correlation DOES NOT equal causation.

Do ice cream sales cause more people to drown? No!

What could possible explain this correlated relationship? Well, maybe temperature. As it gets hotter outside, ice cream sales go up, AND - simultaneously - more people go swimming (thus more drowning rates).

All squares are a type of rectangle but not all rectangles are sqaures!

@Simon Navarrete Lets put the question in a different context. Let's say:

The colour red is more similar "genetically" to orange than it is to yellow. After all, orange contains red.

We're comparing orange vs. yellow and stating which colour red is most similar too.

The winner is orange.

Red is more similar to orange than it is to yellow.

BUT!!! Just because red is more similar to orange than it is to yellow does NOT mean that orange is more similar to red than it is to yellow. Orange is made from both red and yellow, which means it could be just as similar to both. Do you see what I mean?

Here's another example: Just because I am more genetically related to my dad than I am to his father (my grandfather), does not mean that my father is more genetically related to me than he is to his father.

Just because a panda is more similar to a bear than to a raccoon does NOT necessarily imply the bear is more similar to a panda than a racoon.

@owen3480 You would think so. I think this is where absolute and relative comparatives come into play. A smaller surplus doesn't necessarily mean less seeds in total. Here's an example:

If I only "needed" 5 seeds last year, but got 10, I had a surplus of 5 seeds. 10 seeds in total, 5 of which were surplus.

If I needed 10 seeds this year and got 12, I now have a surplus of 2 seeds. 12 seeds in total, but only a surplus of 2. Although my surplus is smaller this year than last, I still possess more seeds than I did last year.

It's relative! Hope that makes sense :)