am I wrong that Craig confuses sufficiency and necessity? Rifka says /lost -> /ask, concludes /ask therefore assumes /lost. Craig says lost -> ask and the contrapositive would be /ask-> /lost, which confuses sufficiency and necessity since Rifka states /lost -> /ask. Idk if this even matters but just curious.

I made this a lot harder than it needed to be. I thought that when the question asked "Which one of the following is mentioned in the passage as evidence for the explanation of the dolphin die-off offered in the final paragraph?" it was asking what was mentioned in the passage (referring to previous paragraphs) that is used for evidence later for the explanation of the dolphin die-off offered in the final paragraph. Therefore I tried to make answer D fit what I was looking for even though I knew it wasn't specifically stated. As for E I knew it was stated in the last paragraph but I dismissed it cause i'm like yea no the question stem wasn't asking that even though know I know it was. totes my fault, got to stop overthinking things.

isn't "best way" going to far, the passage never said that

c sounds like circular reasoning to me. the question stem asks "according to the author, an empirical study of the effect of external cultural influences on the lives of people in a society must begin by identifying" then insert answer c "the role of the external cultural influences in the daily life of people in a society". This answer choice doesn't explain anything, it's just restating what we are trying to find out.

Im confused as to why answer choice A is not correct. I understand it says "actual trials" and the research was based on "simulated trials". However the answer choice states that its effectiveness has been "demonstrated through research conducted by psychologists and legal scholars", whom I assume are the ones who conducted the simulated trials. If thats the case then wouldn't the results from the simulated trials indeed demonstrate the effectiveness in actual trials since the passage states that "the value of stealing thunder is corroborated by those experimental findings"? A reason this answer choice could be wrong is because of my assumption that the simulated trials were conducted by the psychologists and legal scholars, which the passage never stated who conducted the experiments just who conducted research which is more broad. Thats why I eliminated the answer choice, not cause it said "actual trials". If anyone can help me better understand why this answer choice is wrong due to it including "actual trials" please let me know. @Kevin_Lin

nooo I thought we were done w conditional logic after LR

so if I added "only" to answer choice A would it be more likely to be correct? ex) appreciation of the difficulty involved in explaining medical data to judges and jurors together with skepticism concerning the effectiveness of ONLY such testimony. Therefore, "only" excludes the ability of using visuals to help the effectiveness of such testimony, it would be ok to infer that the author would be skeptical

@Kevin_Lin GO KNICKS

what I've been doing is turning conditionals into "all" statements. For example "To be a Jedi, one must be able to use the Force" I translate it to "All Jedi use the force". They both diagram to "Jedi -> Force" so i'm assuming I can do this idk tho but it does help me when negating because then I just negate using the "all" negation rule "Some x are not Y". So, it'd be "Some Jedi do not use the force".

@LaneyWilliams thank you!!

was the diagramming even necessary to get this question correct? feel like its a waste of time, however if its just for learning purposes I understand but no way id be doing that in a timed section.

I'm confused cause I swear you mentioned in the weaken lessons how we shouldn't attack the premises but rather attack the support the premises give to the conclusion (thin out the support). here we directly contradict the premise.

why didn't you diagram the quantifier (some)?

5/5! shocked myself frfr

@LukeFasanello thats what I did too

bro i'm gonna lose my mind i stg

question. do we need all premises to be triggered? like here we only had 1 and 2 but not 3 in the rule.

how do you know when you should diagram? I saw the indicators without and cannot and immediately tried to diagram which made the question 10x harder for me

sorry but what the actual f**k

@battenbarrett same

is it fair to say that “most” relationships can safely connect on the left side of a conditional chain, but not on the right side?

for question 5, isn't "or" the contrapositive of "and"?

for question 3, isn't "or" the contrapositive of "and"?