This is Amazing!

I'm down dude!

Hey man and thank you for doing this! I am still going through the CC but I will make sure to PM you as I start taking more PT's

Thank you J.Y.!

PSA/SA questions and Strengthen/MSS always trip me up. Anybody have any recommendations on how to differentiate the two consistently?

#help (Added by Admin)

Plz accept me peasant law school

I had this one narrowed down to C and E and one thing that helped me rule out C was really about the subject under discussion. In the stimulus what we know is that there is a physically observed phenomenon that actually happened. When you look at C and E side by side, C is talking just about a claim that may or may not has happened. E on the other hand is about physically witnessing the results of a race aka an observed phenomenon.

Yup you guys are absolutely right! On review D seems like a good flaw just not for this problem. Great point on how we simply don't know on when the selling and re-selling occurred! I think when I originally posted I read what I wanted to read on D, where D is decent answer choice until it mentions "future." That's where as you guys mentioned it fails as being descriptively accurate since it really doesn't do anything regarding any projections into the future.

Thank you for the kind words and that's a great way of thinking about it with the contrapositive! I started logging those tough problems like you said and I think you're right about just coming back to it/similar problems and trusting the process that mastery will come.

#help I initially chose C but I think I get what JY is saying. The argument is a contradiction because the way criminals actions are justified applies to everyone. So the author can't shift blame to the law abiding citizens in the conclusion because that same principle applies to them as well.

The principle being that all actions are a product of one's environment. Cool to see a contradiction in action especially one this sneaky.

I'm actually really stoked I got this one wrong because of how clear JY made it on understanding what it really looks like when a presumption is made. Before it was sort of intuitive but this is a great format to keep in mind moving forward!

Another way that helped me conceptually was just thinking of it like with bubbles. So whatever is the necessary condition furthest to the right, that is the biggest circle. The condition in the middle is a medium sized circle inside the big one. And the first sufficient condition on the far left is the smallest circle inside the middle circle.

Then you just remember the all jedi use the force but there are other force users out there that aren't jedi. Same thing with these bubbles. There are things that fall inside the big computer scientist bubbles that don't fall in the medium understanding architecture bubble or the smallest appreciate bubble.

Thank you so much!

Took me a minute but I think I feel better about this one.

I was able to notice that the author is making a big stretch with his conclusion and was in a similar boat as JY where I knew something was wrong but couldn't really define it.

I mistakenly chose B but had A as a contender because I couldn't make sense of the referential phrasing. Here's my crack at it:

"The failure of cited evidence." -The effect the Dobson's premise has on some historians explanation ie an alternate explanation for the phenomenon.

"to establish a statement" -The historians take that the people of Stonehenge knew about celestial events

"Is taken as evidence that the statement is false." -Author's conclusion that the people of Stonehenge had no knowledge of celestial events.

Lesson here seems like just because you can potentially disprove an argument doesn't mean you can automatically conclude the logical opposite.

Would the flaw be similar to saying something like say:

-New channel: Bigfoot has never been seen before so he does not exist.

-History Channel at 3am: Bigfoot hasn't been seen because there are woods that haven't been fully explored. So bigfoot does exist!

Let me know if I'm off or if there any other examples you guys can think of!

This is awesome thank you!!!

Thank you for the Jar Jar reference

Thanks for clarifying!

#help I was on the fence between D and E and incorrectly went with D. I think the big thing that got me was I made it a bit of a stretch to think that "future state of affairs" and the violation as a trustee for future generations were similar enough. The language is similar where it passes the first descriptor test but I think D fails the second test because the flaw is having more to do with cause and effect than any issues with a temporal relationship.

Same! I had trouble pinning down the flaw at first because I thought the conclusion was sneaky by not explicitly saying that A causes B but that it strongly implies A causes B. In the words of CPT Price though: "we'll get em next time."

#help Did some digging in the comments to try and make sense of AC C and I think I'm content with this one now and just wanted to put this out there to see if I'm using the right train of thought/maybe help someone else struggling in the same way.

I originally ruled C out because of the last part of the AC. I thought that "first thing causing the second" was a referential phrase to laptops causing pay.

After reading through the comments I think I was right to think that. The key mistake I made was glossing over the use of the word "is consistent with" which also means "is possible."

When viewed with that in mind, what C is actually saying is that the author concludes that one thing must have caused the other. When in reality it is only one possibility that A caused B.

Damn I had this one but then changed it to B during BR just because of the word "easy" in D.