in a RRE question like this, we take each answer choice as true and we see how it affects the strength of the argument.

TLDR, How do we know she would worry about it? b/c the answer choice says so. E just says, as a fact, that the patient would (likely) worry about sleeping more if told to sleep more. And in RRE, we say "ok, imagine that E is true. So now that it's true, we see that it does resolve the discrepancy between the fact that the patient is sleep-deprived yet the doctor does not recommend him to sleep more."

You're right though that E is not perfect. E doesn't say "worrying about sleep definitely makes it more difficult to sleep" but instead says that "it can." So you're right that it's not guaranteed to be true, but we do know that it is 100% possible. More importantly, we know that E can with 100% certainty obtain to/is relevant to the patient. The other most compelling answer choices don't actually obtain to the patient

D: conceivably could be true, but it says "most people WHO suffer from nightmares" i.e. if you suffer from nightmares --> then xyz. But we have no info to believe that patient suffers from nightmares. He does not activate or trigger the logic here.

C: "some people require less sleep..." but we know that our patient does require more sleep because he came in for fatigue reasons and his sleep deficit was determined to have some impact on fatigue. So C could be true on its own, but it does not obtain to our patient.

A/B: they're equally bad answer choices in that even if fully true and even if they obtain to our patient, their explanations do nothing for the discrepancy that we're concerned about (patient is sleep-deprived, but doctor did not recommend to sleep more).

I had no idea until now that "is the same as" was a bi-conditional indicator. Unless I were to memorize that indicator, though, I'm not yet able to see how this example is a bi-conditional. #help

1) We're looking for what "most helps to explain why it is safe to lift the advisory." Your objection is technically true, but it's a very high burden of proof (that is, to rule out that there is no other way that anchovies could be unsafe to eat) that no other answer choice comes close to meeting. It's sort of like the difference between an MSS vs. SA or NA question.

^^ this is all we need to be comfortable with B being true. But if you want to be really stringent then:

2) One could also stretch to interpret B such that it nearly meets this high burden. "anchovies consume enough plankton to become toxic only when the plankton population is extraordinarily large." This makes clear that within the domain of anchovies consuming plankton," the ONLY way anchovies become toxic is when the plankton pop is large. If the pop is not large, there's no way the anchovies are toxic (within this domain).

How do we know we fall into this domain? Make two soooooomewhat reasonable assumptions: (1) domoic acid is the only thing that can make the anchovies toxic (this can be inferred if we assume from the second sentence that the anchovies being tainted by acid was the only thing authorities found out about anchovies that could make them toxic. The thinking goes, "the authorities must've done their due diligence. If there were other causes of toxicity to worry about, surely the authorities would have mentioned or found them"). And the second assumption (2) plankton are the only thing that the anchovies eat (this is admittedly a stretch, but nowhere in the question/stim do we get an indication that anchovies eat anything else. Unless a suspicion is otherwise raised in the answer choice, we just take things at face value in these questions. This also isn't a weakening question but an MSS, so we should expect answer choices to only provide extra info that would strengthen any unmet assumptions).

Albeit, it does require some stretches to these assumptions to meet this high burden you ask for, but (1) no other answer choice comes close to making a closer stretch; and (2) even if you don't think we can make these two reasonable assumptions, at least we now know what two assumptions would need to be disproven in order to make B false. No other answer choice or piece of info in the stimulus contradicts these two assumptions.

Repo-ing your dog is crazy :(

Actually subbing in the AC into the stimulus is something new and which I think I'll try. This seems like a good strategy

TIL drawing or visualizing venn diagrams is huge. B, C, and D can be immediately ruled out simply because we know we only get logical laws within the subset of retributive theories, and those three answer choices all incorrectly draw conclusions about the wrong subset (rehabilitative) or the superset (all theories).

Sometimes lawgic doesn't help. I tried honing in too hard on how to reconstruct this meta argument about arguments into an argument in lawgic and I just floundered for like 4 minutes. I was so zero'd in on the idea that "MBT must mean I use formal logic!" that I totally missed the actual structure of the argument. If I carefully read each sentence, I could see exactly how the 2nd sentence and the 3rd sentence combine to get me exactly what A says.

And that required me to just sit back a little, read slower, and get a better sense of the argument overall. Sometimes I get so honed in on the formal logic that I literally don't process the literal meaning of words/arguments (i.e. what does it mean to SOLVE a paradoxical arg? What is INTUITIVE?).

I had a similar thought. Two interpretations that still lead to C being clearly strengthening.

1) "taking flight" refers to the opposing side's hypothesis that dinosaurs took off the ground to fly like birds. Implication is that once they take off the ground, they "take flight" and have enough control to do so. The fact that C says they cannot "take flight" in this way weakens the opposing hypothesis and thus strengthens the scientist's hypothesis because an elimination/weakening of an alternative hypothesis strengthens an existing one.

2) Your interpretation (which I shared) says that it is ambiguous what "taking flight" means. Let's say the poor control while taking flight also refers to poor control when gliding. This actually doesn't matter because in either scenario (scientist's hypothesis of gliding vs. opposing hypothesis of bird-like taking off), this means the dino has poor control. If both hypotheses are equally affected by it, it essentially doesn't matter when we are comparing two hypotheses. This leaves us with the other part of AC C, which says that the feathers are those that are suited to gliding. This strengthens the scientist's hypothesis that the dinos glided and didn't fly by taking off like birds.

In either interpretation, C strengthens. Therefore we rule it out.

Not to mention that we don't even know (from the passage) when the Ice Age is in relation to the benchmark in line 21 of 250,000 years. I picked C out of desperation because I just could not find any other answer that fit (I also did not see the milk argument at all in B until the explanation

Indeed, “Get the fuck out of here J.Y.”

FINISHING LR CURRICULUM WITH A 5/5 LESGOOOOOO

Same lol, I wasted so much time thinking I had missed some trick

For me at least, a faster way of eliminating other answer choices and recognizing E as correct is to recognize the following structure in the stimulus:

Premise: likelihood of EVENT in presence of A > likelihood in presence of B

Conclusion: EVENT ‑m→ occur to A

When I realized that the premise worked by comparing probabilities, it was p helpful in recognizing that E is right since it's the only one that really accurate compares probabilities of events (handing out more snacks in presence of other kids vs. in presence of their /other kids)

#feedback JY's explanation was honestly not super helpful-- I wish he had spent even a few more seconds explaining why B is the least bad answer. Reading the comments, though, helps a bit

I do not feel comfortable approaching this question, and there's no way we're going to be long-term friends.

#feedback I thought MP was referring to some question type we hadn't covered yet and got very confused until I realized MP must have meant MC (Main Conclusion). It would be easier in the future to define MP as Main Point/Main Conclusion in this lesson. It would also be nice if you could rename the sections for MC as MC/MP

I did too until I realized that there could be more utility in treating these questions as just "okay, time to just absorb the best I can JY's method of eliminating answers one by one so I can get the types of answer choices and tricks of the testmakers." And then I get to actually put them to practice in the "DIY" question because I feel like I'm applying what I saw in the prior videos.

Here's the lesson negating sufficient conditions! (unless)

https://7sage.com/lesson/group-3-negate-sufficient/

My hack for remembering which group "unless" falls into is just remembering that any clause with "unless" can be translated into "if... not..." It's basically the definition of "unless" --- I can't really think of how to describe aside from just, "if not." So:

"I will go to the park unless it rains" = "I will go to the park if it does not rain"

When I read it that way, it becomes really clear that the clause following "unless" is just a regular sufficient "if" clause that has just been negated. So, just like the lessons taught us, when we see "unless", we take the clause that follows it, put it in the sufficient condition, and then negate it.

God is good!

You are blessed and I am happy for you. Even with infinite time and the responses, I am taking forever on this question. I've got a ways to go.

So the difference between SA and PSA is quite slim, the only difference being the bar of truth is higher for SA (but they functionally work the same, SA questions will just use more formal logic).

The difference between SA/PSA from Principal ones is pretty distinct though! Whereas SA/PSA all have to do with finding an assumption or rule that bridges the premises to a conclusion, Principal questions ask you to find the most generalized version of some illustration/example in the answer choice (i.e., find the principle).

The key is generality. With SA/PSA, you're not trying to be hand-wavey and general --- you're trying to very specifically find either the exact replication of or a very close approximation to some rule like "P1 & P2 --> C". Principal question answers, on the other hand, are supposed to be generalized abstractions of an applied illustration (think, what's the common ground or the best summary of these various specific examples --- that's your principal).

I'd say SA/PSA are real close to each other, but Principal is like a cousin of SA/PSA --- you'd only confuse them, maybe because they SA/PSA share the same "last name" (i.e. SA/PSA talk about "rules" which are a type of principal, and Principal talks about principals in general but only the generalized kinds).

The proper closer sibling to Principal questions is actually RRE questions (you approach both similarly)

Grammatically, "works" can be correct because the subject of the sentence is "none," which is a singular noun. It's vague because we can't actually count the number of "none" (i.e. is "none" plural or singular? who knows it's literally none). Unless there's reason otherwise, a noun like that normally is singular grammatically speaking.

But aside from that I totally agree. Took me forever to understand what the first sentence even meant

Thanks to both of you for explaining it ---- I agree with you gina that I only felt sure enough to eliminate D when I realized that "could" is much weaker than "would" (and that they're different!).

Had been getting cocky not needing to diagram stuff anymore, but this question really humbled me. After watching this, I realize I could have gone from spending 4 minutes on this question to probably like 2.5 if I had just diagrammed.

Yep, if we have an interest in X, then X is of interest (i.e. important) to us. It's just another way to rephrase "have an interest" in.

Another way to think of it is as JY said, that "species we have an interest in/which are important to us" is a SUBSET of the superset of "all things we generally find important to us."

If a principle is a bridge between the premises and the conclusion, then the bridge has to make sure (ideally) as many premises are bridged/addressed as possible. Many answer choices, including C seem to be plausible bridges --- but E is the only bridge that addresses the first premise that a study shows X reduces accidents. C seems quite reasonable, but it is operating on the assumption that we should implement traffic laws that reduce accidents. It's such a straightforward assumption for us that we wouldn't even think it needs to be stated, but that's what this question traps you on. E is the only principle that addresses that un-connected premise about the importance of reducing accidents.

Imagine if an alien who is very logical and takes things literally read the argument-- they would be confused about why the study about reducing accidents mattered to the argument until somebody told them "oh, the principle of enacting traffic laws is that the laws should reduce accidents wherever possible."