I am down!!

I can take a stab at it because I fell for the incidentally true AC (B). We can't possibly map out these percentages, because we don't have enough information for that. If I understand correctly, when dealing with percentages, you are dealing with average values because you don't know the numbers making up the whole. In this case, we don't know the number of Harrison Students, let alone the students at Pullham and Westerville. So the 38% of students taking night classes is an average drawn from the total of class takers in general. Since we don't know these numbers, we can't assume an exact value of students to give us a percentage value. We only know that the Pullham student body has to raise our value to make it to the 28% of total NC students.

Can’t reply to the correct message on the chain but it’s my pleasure! I’ve struggled with these same things too. With LR, it’s especially important to take everything at face value! You’re going to be working with faulty logic so more often than not, you’re going to have to accept it and work with it! Unless it’s strengthen, weaken, and except question types.

Oh your problem may lie with what I call “fighting the test.” LR is written in a way to exploit this weakness. In the case of this stimulus, nothing is “false,” or more aptly, “untrue.” The author is using the psychologists nested claim, and their conclusion casts doubt on the nested claim by implying that traditional rearing didn’t have the effect claimed by psychologist. The argument isn’t saying anything is untrue, rather it’s casting doubt on a nested conclusion to advance another conclusion. I hope this makes sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that reasoning is stretching the argument to explain an AC. That is never the goal of inference because you should be aiming to find an inference AC that naturally results from the argument. If traditionally raised adults were EQUALLY confident to differential raising, so that leads you back to the effects of parenting on confidence. You are instead trying to reason for the average when the focus of the conclusion is why are confidence levels similar when parenting is different.

I'm also interested!

The argument states why that hypothetical wouldn't occur--the five nations permanently have sole authority. The use of sole implies that there would be no additional seats. Remember that the Security Council's reasoning is a past decision, so B perfectly addresses that. If we were to entertain that little nations could become major powers, the Security Council's reasoning falls apart, and that gives us our answer.

I hope what I say makes sense!

The conclusion says that traditionally raised adults are on average equally confident. WTH? But the Historian mentions that child psychologists thought traditional raising would affect self-esteem, and thus lead to less confident adults. However, the average confidence is equally confident meaning that the relationship assumed by the psychologists was wrong. E is correct because it's saying that traditional rearing doesn't affect adult confidence (even if there is lower self esteem). That matches up to the conclusion and draws from the contradicting nested claim.

I'm glad I could help! I just finished CCv2 and I've found that internalizing my understanding of the course (through my own weird brain) works! Getting stuck on thinking exactly like the course can be a bummer. If you understand, you are developing intuition!

Thank you--I love to write! xD

If I understand correctly, should we be taking PTs first before we drill different sections?

Same!

When I was studying blindly, I fell victim to the rapturous power of flaw questions. I was so satisfied to get this one right (+many more) AND understand the underlying logic! I love CCv2 ^^

I believe you are correct. Personally, I don't think you have to think just like the course's explanations to justify your reasoning. In the case of answer choice (B), you were right to eliminate it due to mention to nutritional factors. When I independently reviewed (I defaulted to B last minute rather than C), I found that the mention of nutritional factors actually strengthened the "organic compounds distribution" in the argument. So (B) can definitely be eliminated for having an irrelevant angle, but also because it loosely strengthens the conclusion by linking nutritional factors to organic compounds' distribution!

Yay! Thank you, Kevin!

I was having this issue with Sufficient Assumption questions, too. It's always a good idea to go back to foundations before taking a stab at confounding material.

Maybe I missed it in CCV2, but is there a specific lesson regarding Prescriptove/Descriptive conclusions? Just want to make sure I am covering all lessons to round out my skills! Mentally mapping is becoming more intuitive but I really do have to slow down with my reading, lol.

On first blush, I conflated wealth to acquiring money and I got it wrong. A second attempt led me to catch that. Yet again, I am reminded how important careful reading is to draw the correct elements for the answers! I'll def be reviewing formal logic as a refresher. The tough PSA questions killed my HUGE confidence boost XD

This is exactly how I solved it via my second attempt. The Strengthen framework works because the element "with a gap" is the spacecraft element. Using POE, you're left with C and D. C is a necessity for sufficiency trap (I think!), which leaves us with D! Thanks for this comment :D Glad to be affirmed haha

Their ass would get that motion kicked back expeditously, LOL. Obviously that background helps, but the logic of the rule reveals itself too.

Doing this practice question as a paralegal was funny, lol.

The Perfect Experiment lessons FINALLY clicked for me in this lesson, lol. I think it helps to consider the questions being reviewed for Strengthen/Weaken are high in difficulty. So understanding these helps... a bit!

The problem is that you're evaluating the question choice rather than seeing it as true. This isn't so different from making an unstated assumption about the stimulus. If the AC still challenges you, evaluate it through POE. A, D, and E all violate the stimulus. You're left with B and C. Since we must consider the paradox in the stimulus, C does very little. It doesn't explain why blackouts still will occur. B, however, does resolve that stimulus. Questioning the validity of an AC when asked to assume the statement as true will continue to trip you up.

I used to do that allllll the time before starting 7Sage.

4/5! Sometimes I find that going too into the theory in BR trips me up but I feel significantly better about MBT than I did during my diagnostics.

You're confusing the sufficient condition for the necessary condition. Immutable is necessary not sufficient