Someone posted this discord link: https://discord.gg/j5BfN3U3

Interested !!

#feedback The first sentence of the second paragraph in the 'Anticipation' section has a minor typo

The way I thought about it is adding a factor like a driver having severe anxiety. That driver's performance would be disproportionately impacted by the presence of a supervisor, therefore you couldn't argue that the effect on all the best drivers would be the same.

So:

Driver 1 (anxious): 9/10 pre supervisor

Driver 2 (not anxious) 9/10 pre supervisor

+ Supervisor presence

Driver 1 (anxious): 5/10

Driver 2 (not anxious) 7/10

Even with top performers the same variable (presence of a supervisor) would disproportionately effect one of the drivers. It's not just the driver's skills that act as the baseline for the variable to take effect, rather the traits of the driver themselves. This would then shuffle the order of rankings even with a similar starting score.

Its a pretty abstract example but I Hope that helps !

I struggle with the same thing. I think the point is that while it is inclusive, its overly exclusive to just the situation in the stimulus. It closes the door to other situations where the manufacturer could be responsible, which is beyond the scope of the stimulus. By saying 'only if' you are excluding every other version of events. when it says 'if' rather than 'only if' you're including the situation within the stimulus without excluding any other version of events that would render the manufacturer responsible.

Not sure if that made sense but hope it helps ! Also- this is a link to a necessary sufficient explanation that helped me understand the concepts way better- https://www.kaptest.com/study/lsat/lsat-formal-logic-necessary-vs-sufficient/