Would we read Miranda if this was a weakening question?
so its okay to bring outside info for E? because that was such a implicit assumption the argument made lowkey. I didnt even question why get the qualified teachers in that region if you can em elsewhere.
Does it matter if the NA stimulus uses an analogy in its premise or conclusion? I noticed with the last one too it was in the conclusion.
Okay so dumb question, so when he says we widened the similarity, did he mean the similarity between the conclusion and other cities?
so we cared about an exemplary record because it was bi-conditional? what if it wasn't? would the AC's that mention Pen not having exemplary record yet she saved a life would make it correct?
bro ofc A, rip, I just didnt wanna assume it but then I guess it was safe to assume that.
So for method of reasoning question stems, do we just ignore the second person if their asking about the first person or speaker?
So I got rid of E because of the sentence it said after rarely. Would that be still valid or did I need to realize that it wasn't even talking about the right group of people?
I ended up choosing the right one but I still lowkey didn't like C because of the last part that said, "farm animals", I was like okay but it only talked about cows, what if that wouldn't work for other farm animals? Did anyone else think about that? how do I avoid this?
Ahh I ended up choosing the wrong answer because B said, "changes in peoples feelings about life" I was like well what if its just one aspect that they changed their feelings about and not life in general lmao. How do I avoid this process of thought? its hard to know when to not be too critical.
Hi, so I was wondering if someone could tell me the difference between pseudo sufficient assumption - find the rule, questions versus principle questions? and if you can tell me how you identify the question type from one another please??
Thankyouuu in advance!.
has anyone else tried to solve this in a different way?
so for the Patterns in wrong answers
Conditional logic baits:
Stating a necessary condition doesn't mean there aren't others.
what does this mean? like confusing them? idk i think the wording tripped me up.
I just want to confirm my understanding on this.
Are these true?
If sufficient fails then no valid conclusions about the necessary condition, but if sufficient satisfied or affirmed then it triggers necessary, hence we can have a valid conclusion.
If necessary fails then it would trigger the sufficient, hence we can have a valid conclusion, but if necessary satisfied or affirmed then no valid conclusion.
and also whats the best way to memorize this? lol
So around July I will be done with the CC, and I plan on testing in October. I also know that I may not finish every PT that is available right now, but which PT would you recommend me to start from? should I start with the older PT's or just the newer ones (141-158)?
Thank you in advance!
bro I thought the first sentence was the C, I even tested it, both ways made sense, how do I not make the same mistake? even tho I still got it right lol.
when it comes to "no" it is always better to negate the first sentence rather than the second sentence or only in this instance we did this?
can someone explain why E is incorrect tho, when it comes to Waller pov?
so which category of RRE is this question? Which one of the following, if true, most helps to account for the pest control experts' recommendation?
bro I thought the, "one cannot be sure" was the conclusion lol. So does this "one cannot be sure" play as the premise in the argument?
D lowkey tripped me up because of the way it moved around the training programs and creativity compared to what was said in the stimulus.
What does C even mean though?