diabolical trick. absolutely evil.

Any ideas on how to more quickly get to the correct AC for this question? I'm able to get to the ride answer but it just takes me a while. Maybe I need more practice but I was wondering if people have some strategy for quickly eliminating wrong ACs

I just joined last month and I was literally thinking a few days ago that this would be a nice feature :)

Can somebody map out the Lawgic for answer choice B, as well its contrapositive? For some reason I can't seem to figure out the right form.

same lie 2 diff -> (\both owed -> neither owed)

Now how can I contrapose this?

\(\both owed -> neither owed) -> same lie 2 diff

For one, how can I take the contrapositive of a grouped/embedded conditional?

Two, are there any lessons on sufficient embedded conditionals? Can I replace the arrow in the embedded sufficient condition with an "AND"?

GAH i was doing so good on this section focusing on how the AC relate to the argument structure in relation to weaken/strengthen.

I chose C and made two mistakes:

1. assume that less time = saving money

2. THIS AC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THE EDITOR THINKS THE REASONING IS ABSURD. The editor says its absurd because the overall volume will be the same. C makes no such comment on this premise.

GAHHHHHH.

Super low on time and did the shallowest dips. I totally misinterpreted the question as the stimulus is the principle, and quickly eliminated any AC that did not revolve around a corporation, which meant eliminating any AC that revolved around an individual.

That left me (incorrectly with B).

How will I avoid this mistake in the future:

1. I'm now aware of this type of question stem so I will read more carefully if it mentions "principle".

What helped me eliminate the wrong AC was tying back how it relates to the argument premises. A lot of the answers can be eliminated because they don't improve the existing premises, and instead come up with unrelated premises.

I eliminated answer E because I thought that it sidestepped the argument.

My mistake was thinking that "There is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region" was a contextual statement so I kind of mentally blocked it off.

My 2nd mistake was once I had narrowed it down to AC D and E and was unsure, I didn't negate them both out. I negated D and glossed over "any student" and "overall student". Had I negated both ACs, it would've raised the red flag that I was missing something since negating both would work.

Takeaways:

1. Need to consciously analyze argument structure for NA questions

2. When in doubt, (time permitting) analyze through negation

RAHHHHHHHHHHHHH SAW STRAIGHT THROUGH THAT % VS ABSOLUTE

for me the key is really to analyze the argument structure. It's something I probably should've been doing more consciously for other problems, and the NA questions really expose that weakness for me

#help

I'm having some trouble understanding the difference between direct evidence and causal mechanism. To me they seem linked together.

Smoking is correlated with lung cancer.

Causal mechanism: Smoking causes damage to DNA which in turn causes cancerous tumors.

Direct evidence that would strengthen our hypothesis: We observe the cells of smokers and find damaged DNA.

Direct evidence that would weaken our hypothesis: We observe the cells of smokers and find perfectly healthy DNA.

GAH this passage just keeps going on and on

gah too many modifiers

hohoho im getting it now i understand it now

RAHHHHHHHHHHHH THIS IS TOO EASY

ts so evil bruh

yk what pmo its that they disguised sufficiency necessary confusion AC with a bunch of annoying grammar. JUST SHOW ME THE ANSWER GAHH