Hi, I think the issue with B is that the argument just says there are "more ways in which it can fail". failure means both false positives and false negatives, so the system failing doesn't have to only cause an accidental inflation to count as a failure. also, the stimulus is in relative terms (more ways to fail --> problem gets worse) but the answer choice is in absolute terms (any failure --> accidental inflation). the stimulus doesn't say that any failure is an airbag failure, it just says that if there are more ways to fail then it's more likely that the air bag will fail. also, the goal of the question isn't to weaken the stimulus, it is to describe something fundamentally wrong with the stimulus.

sorry if this is confusing, I also struggled a lot on this question

this question is really confusing, are we supposed to assume that these other countries that also export pesticide X are exporting it to countries whose products ship to the US? also, if the US stopped exporting these pesticides, it would make it less likely for the other countries to have access to them (decreased supply) so how is it reasonable to assume that it wouldn't make a difference in consumers' health? I had difficulty eliminating the other answer choices because I felt like they all required the same amount of unreasonable assumptions

the video does consider between caligula and his enemies, when jy says "historians" he's talking about the people who documented the alleged acts which are the enemies. I totally agree though, I would have just thought that caligula did his research or was inspired by previous rulers.

E doesn't account for the "incapable" part, E says ted doesn't have to report because either nobody was injured or there was no property damage, but we don't know if that is true. what if someone was injured and ted was incapable of reporting? B has to be true, because if his car was damaged, he would have to report. since we know he doesn't need to report, then it must be true that he was incapable of reporting

the geologist's position is that since there are biomarkers, the petroleum didn't come from carbon deposits. D is saying that it is possible for biomarkers to exist in carbon deposits (bacteria), so the petroleum could have still come from there even if it has biomarkers.

Hi, I'm not sure if this will be helpful but this is how I understood it:

Bernard is saying that Cora is wrong (the typewriter WASN'T designed to slow people down due to limitations) because if it was, now that we don't have the limitations anymore, we would have changed the layout so it wouldn't slow people down anymore. he's basically saying that the tech limitations of the past are irrelevant to us now because we don't have the limitations anymore. the question asks us to find the answer that allows cora to be right, while still explaining to bernard why the keyboard is the way it is now.

so the correct answer is A because it shows that yes, maybe we could have another faster layout, but since every generation after the typewriter era has learned to type on the standard typewriter keyboard, they are not willing to change to another layout. it basically shows that the limitations of the past are relevant to us, because that typing method has been passed down through the ages despite the actual technology evolving past the limitation.

hopefully this helped, I actually picked B when I was doing the question because I fell for the trap haha but I think I get it now

Hi, I think it's typically recommended to finish the CC before starting to do practice tests. RRE is still pretty early in the syllabus so the score you're getting now is likely not reflective of what you would get at the end of the syllabus. but if you're really pressed for time, maybe try learning the weaker sections and then see if your score improves. also, try not to spend too much time taking practice tests this early in your studying since they take up a lot of time and are a bit of a waste of time if you don't know the basic LR question types

I'm not OP but I think what they mean is that C has similar subject matter as the stimulus (taxes, wealth, etc.) but that doesn't mean that it's similar to the stimulus in terms of the reasoning, since the form/shape is different

I think the actual contrapositive would be "Jackie's second child was not likely to be born prematurely, so her first child was probably not premature either". this is just a guess though, I could be wrong

Hi, I also picked D when doing the question but from what I understand now it's wrong because of this:

the stimulus has two issues, it doesn't trigger the sufficient condition in the rule (which is being a paleomycologist) and it makes a one-for-all mistake in triggering the necessary condition (assuming that Mansour is familiar with all publications when he is just familiar with one).

Answer choice D does trigger the sufficient condition: 1+ years --> can participate, and gavin has 1+ years of experience, so already it's not parallel to the stimulus. additionally, D concludes that gavin will for sure participate, but the rule only states that he can participate, so that's another issue. the mistakes in the stimulus don't match to D.

the "state of affairs" is like an alternate universe - a world in which the economic policies aren't changed. in this world, the economist predicted that there would be a recession. but, the economist said that they did change the policies, so they are now in a different world in which the policies are changed and there is no recession. since that world "didn't occur", the state of affairs that was required for a recession "didn't obtain". I hope this didn't make it more confusing lol

I used a slightly different method to understand the stimulus (I found the lesson explanation to be a little too abstract and confusing) so here it is if it's helpful to anyone:

the conclusion is that explaining causes of cultural phenomena requires data about several societies. so let's say that I make the claim that the political structure in society X is brought about solely by factor A. how would someone disprove my claim? by showing that 1 - there is another society, society Y, with the same political structure as society X, but in society Y, factor A doesn't exist, so it can't be the sole cause of the structure. or, the person arguing against me could also show that there is another society, society Z, that is subject to factor A, but lacks the political structure of society X.

not sure if this is helpful to anyone but framing it as an argument between two parties helped me understand the stimulus really quickly.

the conclusion essentially says that the only aliens we have a chance of finding in the near future are the ones that are at least AS intelligent as us. meaning the other set of aliens that the argument is concerned with are not as intelligent/more intelligent than us

Hi, I'm not sure if my explanation will be less confusing than jy's but I did it as a chain. for it to be valid, the premises need to chain up in a way that makes the conclusion follow. these are the given premises (ignoring the stuff about interaction between teacher and student):

traditional education → /social

develop insight → social

so to make these chain up, you'd need to take the contrapositive of the second statement:

traditional education → /social

/social → /develop insight

so now you have a chain of:

traditional education→ /social → /develop insight

and now you need a statement that connect this chain to the conclusion, which is that traditional education → /effective. the missing link is that /develop insight → /effective, which is what the correct answer choice says. when you add the answer choice into the chain, you get:

traditional ed → /social → /develop insight → /effective, which would give you the conclusion that traditional ed → /effective.

this is super wordy so sorry if it was even more confusing haha

the conclusion in the stimulus equivocates pleasure with merit, so the correct answer choice would have to bridge that gap and A is the only one that does

the premises in the stimulus explicitly state that the purpose of a private company is to make money and NOT to promote health, meaning its primary purpose is making money.

Hi! I'm not 100% sure but I think E is: /satisfies curiosity and /accurate information → /good journalism, (I took the concept of good journalism and negated and made necessary) so the contrapositive would be good journalism → Satisfies Curiosity + Provides accurate info. this is wrong because it has the necessary and sufficient switched, since the correct answer is Satisfies curiosity + Accurate info → Good journalism.

Also it might be helpful to think of it in plain english, the stim doesn't say anything about journalism that doesn't provide accurate info or public interest so we can't pick that to be the rule that it is operating on.

Hope this helps!

Hi, the way I took it is that D just discusses the number of consumers that benefit but E breaks down the causal chain that the analogy depends on. "Lesser extent" in D means some consumers are benefiting, but "less competition" in E means there is a chance that the causal chain that caused the success of telecomm privatization won't even happen for national parks.

I think the main difference is that with "luke becomes a jedi only if yoda trains him", it is possible that yoda trains luke but luke doesn't become a jedi. the statement is silent on whether being trained by yoda guarantees (is sufficient) for luke becoming a jedi. but when you say "if and only if yoda trains him", it guarantees that if yoda trains him, he will become a jedi.

hey, I think the conditional in this case is actually "anyone", not "will". so the two statements in conjunction are infected and 1 week. it is saying that antibodies produce when patients have been infected for a week. so the lawgic would be

infected and 1 week → antibodies

/antibodies → /infected or /1 week

so if a patient doesn't have antibodies it is because either they are not infected or they have been infected for less than a week.

sorry if i made it more confusing, but hope this helps!

I was really lost but the v1 video explaining the process was pretty helpful (watched it in 0.8x speed though). until there are videos for this lesson, would recommend watching the v1 video