#feedback I think there is a flaw in this diagraming.

The stim is not saying that:

All "brick houses(BH)" have "front yards(FY)" and most brick houses with front yards have "Two stories (2S)." That is what you diagrammed with:

BH→FY‑m→2S

What the stim is saying is that on River street: All brick houses (BH) have front yards (FY) ALSO, most Houses with front yards have 2 stories(2S)

We have no idea how many houses are on River Street nor what percentage of them are brick. It is absolutely possible that the street has 100 houses, all 100 of them could have front yards, but only 1 of them is Brick. That means that we can reasonably have a situation where most houses with front yards have 2 stories and NONE of them are brick houses. This is why we cannot infer anything about the number of floors in brick houses from the information provided.

Should it not be:

Domain: River Street

Brick + House → FY

House + FY ‑m→ 2S

(Brick + House) and (House + FY) have no guaranteed overlap and cannot be linked.

Did I misinterpret the stim in some way?

In many ways you are right. This is a very good example of an ad hominem argument (attacking the speaker instead of engaging with the topic) but it is a very bad example of an answer choice that homes in on the nature of the flaw as an ad hominem attack.

It is still the best answer, however. It targets a legitimate flaw even if it does not really target the one he is trying to focus on.

Because the conclusion focuses on how this proposal is dishonest, pointing out that he would only technically be dishonest if "the rule was in effect and he continued to take bribes" is a legitimate flaw to target. Once, we establish taking bribes while it is legal, then trying to close a loophole you still benefit from is not dishonest the whole argument falls apart.

It is closer to weaken than a real solid flaw question though. I agree with you.

Another good option is to read dense books in your free time to become more familiar and comfortable with convoluted language, either non-fiction or fiction with lots of flowery language

So real. #feedback I wish the submit check was only clickable on the last question of the drill

That would be the arguments chapter of the core curriculum:

https://7sage.com/lesson/arguments-are-relationships/

Another good way to look at it is what the answer does.

Sufficient Assumptions are strong answers that make the conclusion stronger. They are there to beef up the logic and make it more likely to be true.

Necessary assumptions on the other hand are not trying to prove or strengthen anything. Necessary assumptions are proved by the information already in the stimulus. They are almost always weaker than SA because their purpose is not to prove the conclusion correct but to be required by the logic of the Existing facts. They are often unassuming almost "Duh, obviously" type answers. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that an NA answer is too weak to be right. It is not supposed to be powerful, but provable.

It is not. Necessary assumptions are not proving the argument they are proved by the stim. there is nothing in the stim to support that statement so this would be a sufficient assumption.

You are one the right track, though! These sorts of questions love answers that restate the stim and just include the missing piece. Next time you won't second guess yourself and you'll get it right.

You can take the contrapositive, but this does not prove that these are the ONLY conditions that trigger "Should Get the award."

The stim said "Act+1y+Beyond→Should" is a way you can qualify but not the only way. The fact that he failed this way does not prove he could not have qualified another way.

It did say that if one does not have an "Exemplary Record" then one does not qualify and cannot get the award. So we need to trigger that in order to prove the conclusion valid. Only A does that

As long as no part of the answer contradicts any part of the stim AND is the best or contains the best answer then it can be a right answer for a strengthen question.

I will admit it was a red flag an made me spend way more time looking for another answer that didn't add an irrelevant variable to the mix.

You are trying to justify why this information "raising the speed will decrease the number of accidents" should be applied. A simply tells you in which cases this new rule should be applied, not why. Only E gives the reader a reason to implement the new policy. If all policies that reduce accident rates should be implemented, and this policy reduced accident rates, then this policy should be implemented.

E supports the conclusion in a way A does not. If we have only 2 pieces of info, raising speed limits reduces accidents (premise from the stim), and uniform speed limits should only be applied to high speed roadways (answer A) it does not follow that the rule should be implemented. You would need to assume that the policy makers goal is to reduced accidents, which is exactly what E says. That is why E is corrects and A is not.

Take more time on these untimed sections. Read each word. Maybe try reading it aloud. It will build good habits. Also try picking up some dense books and read them during leasure time. This will help with your word parsing and reading speed. I am reading Jorge Luis Borges but you can chose anyone you want.

Try refreshing the page a few times. The player breaks pretty easily if you go through a few lessons.

B is less correct because it does not strongly overcome the premise that states "Amazon I mean Azedcorp is steadfastly not selling." It is almost precluded by the stim. E is more correct because if they are FORCED to sell by an outside factor that means that the the main obstacle for Moris is removed, allowing for the planned takeover.

You should not directly contradict the conclusion. You can and should attack premises.

The conclusion is that the asteroid did not directly cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs.

If the answer had been simply: "The asteroid directly caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs." It would have been attacking the conclusion. But it did not. It found a loop hole in the logic of one of the premises.

The author concedes that the impact would have killed all the dinosaurs in the area around the impact, but this would not have been enough to kill most of the dinos in the world. The loophole answer E exploits is to say "What if most of the dinos were in the impact radius of the asteroid." This would mean the impact killed most of the dinosaurs. Weakening the argument.

I can see how this could be interpreted as attacking the conclusion and I guess it is, but indirectly. It is adding new information that undercuts the conclusion, it does not outright say the conclusion is wrong.

An assumption is something that is not explicitly stated that must be true if the premise is true. So if it is explicitly stated it is not an assumption, It is a premise. If it is supported by all the other premises, it is the conclusion.

This advice is for weakening questions. Ask if is supports the stim and if so eliminate it. That should leave you with only weakening answers.

This can be used for strengthening questions too though with a few modifications.

If you are not able to see it right away then the process of elimination is the best plan. Look at each option and ask does this support the argument in the stimulus:

1. If it does support the question, eliminate it

2. If it is consistent but not harmful, eliminate it

3. If it does weaken the stim leave it.

Then follow these steps

A. Select the answer left

B. If you have more than one answer left select the one that most powerfully attacks a premise of the argument (not the concussion directly)

C. If you have no answers left reread the stim looking for something you missed. If you are still confident in your choices, return to answers that fit category 2(consistent but not directly harmful) and repeat steps A and B.

It might take quite a long time at first, but as you do it, you will become faster and faster. Or at least learn when you should skip and come back if you have time.

That's plenty of time man. You got this!

Maybe, but she was not described as choosing to work with her stationmate. She was assigned. While this is a good loophole to keep in mind, from what we can tell she was instructed to work with another employee therefore breaking the second rule.

It could be as simple as reframing your perception of blind review. The purpose is not to choose the next best answer but to confirm your answer. Raise the burden of proof needed to change your answer. Maybe it would help if you only changed your answer when you were extremely confident in your new answer.

But if you can't second-guessing yourself don't do blind review. Some people do consistently talk themselves out of the right answer given infinite time. Do what works for you. If you are not benefiting from the blind review don't do it. It is really designed to be used in practice tests where you flag the questions you either didn't have time to finish or were not certain about so you can go back and relook at them before knowing if you were right or not. If even then you consistently get a worse score after blind review, you need to acknowledge that it is not helping and find another way to practice.

You can chain these 2 phrases by taking the contrapositive of the first:

if a public place is uncomfortable, then it is not well-designed

/(comfortable[c])→ /(well-designed[wd]) = wd →c

all comfortable public places have spacious interiors

(comfortable[c]) → (spacious interiors [si])

You can chain that to wd→c→si

This means that if something qualifies as well-designed[wd] it also has to have spacious interiors [si].

Since we know we are only talking about the subsets of public places that are either well-designed restaurants or well-designed coffeehouses, then we know we can take them all the way through the logic chain.

C is wrong because we don't know enough about the size of the groups involved. We have no idea how many things would qualify as Public Spaces, and what percentage of those are coffee shops or restaurants.

Without breaking the rules set up by the stim it is possible to imagine the superset of Public Spaces as containing over a billion entries, coffeehouses could have as few as 1 entry each. That means when the "most scoop" comes in to select the most of the billion Public Spaces it is not guaranteed to pick up the one Coffeehouse.

The only way we could guarantee most Public Spaces included at least some Coffeehouses would be if we knew Coffeehouses made up 50% or more of the superset Public Spaces. Then there is no way that Most could ever not include at least 1 Coffeehouse.

Answer C then goes one step further and claims that it is not just some of the coffee houses that have artwork but most, making it even more indefensible.

Ok. So I know that this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but I want to see if I can articulate the confusion more clearly.

I understand that /(traffic congestion decreases[TCD])→/(Profits of DownTown Business increase [PI])

can be negated to:

PI → TCD

But this is something you can infer from a fact. If Profits increase then we know that traffic had to decrease. But it seems like this should not chain because it is not a causal relationship it is an exception. That means that if we want to have PI then we need to have TDC AND More Consumers Living in the Downtown Area [MC]. If either of these conditions are not met then /PI.

No causal relationship was made between MC and TCD so while it might graph in Lawgic, but logically it is nonsensical. there is no way to draw a line between more people living in Downtown to traffic decreasing given what we know.

MC is enough to prove PI only if TCD is met as well

Should it not be written as

(Decreased cost of Living[DL]) → MC → PI

EXCEPT: /TDC

It is ok for a correct answer choice to be a suggestion. This type of question is not looking for the answer to be provable, or even true, it is just asking what the author was trying to say. If the final sentence had been " then, it is advisable for florists to make deals with leprechauns who can turn flowers green." that would have been the right answer because it filled the role of the conclusion despite being untrue, ridiculous, and a suggestion. It is supported (however weakly) by all the other premises, so it is the main conclusion.

Practice. As you continue to do this, you will become faster. You will know exactly what you are looking for, so you will not need to spend as much examining the wrong answer choices. Spending a lot of time on questions when you first start is good and expected. You are honing a skill.