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)

haha I thought the same. I went with that one for that possible reason or because I thought maybe it was like an emotional appeal. I thought the word "resembles" maybe didn't have to mean look exactly like and maybe the black and white pic reflected how John felt like he looks.

Plz accept me peasant law school

This might've been brought up in previous lessons but I'm currently drawing a blank on it, but when we have two arguments do you guys know when to read both arguments vs only reading one?

#help (Added by Admin)

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.

This was awesome and a big help! Thank you for the time I really appreciate it

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 got this one but I struggled on ruling out B and C. After watching the video C is a lot easier to rule out but B is still confusing.

I thought the "system's" mentioned in B was some sort of call back to what the meteorologist said about a "system as complicated as that giving rise to climate."

I think that B might just be focused on talking about different types of weather systems in really abstract language. Either way I know it fails the intuition test just based off feel but was just trying to see if anyone had a more deliberate way to rule this one out.

#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!