- Joined
- May 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@IAmSmartacus Thank you Smarticus. When the Romans come I will stand up for you
@allegralg That's a good catch actually. I hate that this questions uses a word such as "efusive:" like @NitinP, I also interpreted it as strong expression of emotion, not ONLY for pleasure. However, I looked up the dictionary definition and you are right that the coach is pointing at only the positive emotional reaction. The fact that a seldom used word such as effusive is present here kinda sucks; obviously you have to make an assumption that it refers to both behaviours and not just one if you don't recall the exact definition while answering the question. It's genuinely playing on your knowledge of that word. Would love more input from others. Tricky ahh question
@rdwade02 @TishaBrahmbhatt
I found this to be quite difficult because identifying a past-to-present analogy can be quite easy to miss. Here's how I look at it.
The stimulus isn't purely conditional because it utilizes words such as "most" and "probably." So, these relationships are weaker than "if A, then B." In my experience, I notice that when stimuli use weaker language, the logic is not always fully causal and requires some of what is happening here.
Importantly, the word "Any" here is establishing a weak if/then relationship as well. The last sentence (Conclusion) is the same to:
"If you are a proposal AND you are endorsed --> you will PROBABLY pass
When you have "Any" like this, you are making a reference to a hypothetical future event. The same goes for "if" in the conclusion: unless there is an actual concrete example, it is a hypothetical.
The premise is making an comparison to a past correlation between the two things in the sufficient condition. So, the correct answer will follow this argument structure of a hypothetical conclusion (that uses words "any" or "if/then") preceeded by a correlation that has existed in the past.
Question. The instructor has said that if we can't get these in time, we should review foundations and then go over it again, rather than continuing to attempt this question time. How long is too much time? is there a particular threshold that they mean by that? Would 20 seconds fall into that category
@BenjiLuscko Hey Benji,
You are right. This is not a valid argument form. You can't show the sufficient from just showing the necessary.
Here is how I diagrammed it:
take advice --> succeed
succeed
THEREFORE, take advice
This is not valid. There can be other ways to succeed. However, if the argument had said that Jackson did NOT succeed, it would be valid
Consider this:
take advice --> succeed
\succeed
THERFORE, \take advice
"Take advice" has the necessary condition of succeeding. If we don't have the necessary condition, there is no way to have the sufficient.
Imagine a circle which represents all those who have succeeded. Those who took the advice are a subset of that circle (a smaller circle inside the large one). If you are in that smaller circle, you must be inside the larger one.
@GDatria715 How is D correct? The newspaper subscriber is arguing that Arnot's conclusion is false because he is making an argument which depends on a dubious claim. He never attacks a different version of Arnot's claim. In other words, we know only 2 things about Arnot's claim
Its conclusion
That it apparently depends on a dubious assumption.
We don't have anything to suggest that Arnot's argument is not as is described in the first sentence of the stimulus. I'm not sure how D can be correct here.
It's definitely confusing. The way I think about this is by using a similar argument. Consider this:
The Earth is round because my dog told me.
Obviously it's not exactly parallel to the stimulus, but the concept is the same. This relies on many dubious assumptions. But the logical problem here is that although those assumptions are false (the most obvious for this example being that my dog can't talk or communicate that to me), the conclusion is true. The earth is still round. All that you've done by pointing this assumption out is show that I can't support that conclusion on my premise, not that the conclusion is not correct.
Going back to the stimulus, "But clearly this conclusion is false" DOES mean that the newspaper subscriber is claiming that the conclusion is false. But he has merely shown that Arnot's support is bad, not that the conclusion is false. The logical flaw here does not relate at all to whether the newspaper subscriber is attacking the correct claim or not.
@Rose955 Hey Rose, this is a suf/nec confusion. If A is required for B, then you can't have A without having B. So, A-->B
Think of it like this. Change requires a motive. If you have motivation, that doesn't mean you're required to change. The statement is one directional, with motive being the necessary condition and change being the sufficient.
I hope i made sense lol
@MRod Honestly, NA questions are hard because we have been so used to doing sufficient questions that answers just feel odd.
Whenever I approach these questions, I keep in mind two things:
Is there absolutely any way I can simplify this, and still have it make sense? For answer choice B, the phrase "using current technology" stuck out - as is said, the conclusion is an if-then statement, so why is it ABSOLUTELY necessary? Would removing "current technology" change the answer's relationship to the stimulus? Current technology doesn't have a bearing on the if-then relationship within the argument's conclusion, and so it could be dropped. If you can simplify further, then the answer choice is too strong to be correct
Of course, negation. If it's not true, what happens?
I would recommend just drilling NA questions. They're absolute bitches of a question type that just take grinding to get through. Especially coming off SA questions, it take a lot of getting used to, with which I am struggling too.
Hey everyone,
So I've been going through the core curriculum and have a few questions about the analytics after every page, specifically related to the curve.
What does it actually mean when it says "Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right?" What does that 50% chance actually refer to, and how can you relate it to yourself? Especially if you don't do blind review, you have up to 5 answers. How is this determined and how can you actually apply it to yourself and your understanding of a particular question type?
Cheers
@TeklaCo I might be a little late with this but I can explain why B isn't the case.
B is talking about the quality of education and its relationship to tuition. However, this is not necessary because the stimulus doesn't actually directly talk about the quality of the education itself, but what parents/students conclude about the quality of education. So basically, B could be false, but parents and students could still conclude that education is linked to fees.
For B to work, you need to make the assumption that parents/students make conclusions based off of facts, but the stimulus doesn't give you any justification for why they conclude as such or what would cause them to conclude otherwise.
@asanchez Hello asanchez, the reason is because "ONLY IF" is a necessary condition indicator. I've been tripped up by this too.
@Amelia_D Hello, I think what is meant by "reachable" and "unreachable" is the pure logical arguments provided by the stimulus. Here, we have two rules, with "J" in the sufficient condition for one, and necessary in the other. If we contra pose the first rule, we can get two rules that look like this:
~comp TOB --> ~J (logically equivilant to the rule in the video)
comp TOB and TGBEL --> J
(I'm using "~" for negation here)
Here, you can see that our REACHABLE conclusions are Justified and Not Justified. Furthermore, we only have THESE TWO WAYS of reaching either conclusion. If the answer question says "not justified," we MUST meet the sufficient conditions in the first rule to trigger it.
TLDR: Reachable/Unreachable refers to the conclusions which the arguments we have, when translated into Lawgic, support.
@ArthurMorgan I also got stuck here and chained it similar to this. I think the "in addition" is fluff here - we are introducing a new relationship that is not connected to the old one. This might best be illustrated by asking whether there's any value in the argument TOB and RGBEL --> Comp. TOB. If the sufficient conditions here are met, our conclusion is a premise. I believe that this might even be an incorrect way of diagramming this question.
Basically, the second if-then statement is a standalone relationship when compared to the first statement. It provides another rule within the domain of no authorisation to reach the conclusion "justified." The "in addition" wording does not create a logical relationship with the first if-then statement, but is rather fluff.
I understood the arguments of the speakers like this:
High size of contemporary art --> Museum fulfils its purpose.
I then looked at Simpson's argument, and found that he was DENYING that relationship - in other words, saying that the relationship doesn't hold (the size of contemporary art being met does not fulfil the purpose of the museum).
Is this an appropriate way to approach this question? I landed on A because it denies that relationship through the use of the world ONLY - this justifies the reasoning in Simpson's argument by denying the relationship between the size of the contemp. art collection and whether the museum is fulfilling its purpose.
@Flying_Jatt.17 Here's how it clicked for me.
The instructor's diagramming is useful here. The domain is Medicines and Unpleasant (Generally). The argument divides that set into three: tablet, capsule, or soft gel form. The argument also provides statements that suggest that Medication M is not a tablet and is not in soft-gel form. From this set of facts, the argument concludes that it's likely medication M is in capsule form.
The reason B is correct is because it affirms that medication M actually BELONGS to that set. The rule outlines in the argument is a general rule about medications which taste unpleasant: by assuming that medication M is unpleasant, we can affirm that it does actually belong in that set. Take the opposite of B: let's say that Medication M does NOT have an unpleasant taste. In that case, the general rule (which applies only to unpleasant tasting medicines) would NOT apply here, and the conclusion that Medication M is likely to be produced in capsule form is seriously threatened.
I'm not sure how the relationship between the first 3 sentences can be easily identified. Specifically, I interpreted "budgetary pressures to.." as action that is forced on the program's directors, not a choice. I do understand how the answer is correct, but I wanted to ask and see if there was an easier way to link language like "pressure" to a stronger "attempt to solve problem." I struggled a little here - it intuitively seems that "attempts to solve problem" is stronger language than "there is pressure on the program to.." Thank you!
I found this question horrifically difficult, but managed to figure it out.
The argument looks like this:
==
published this yr --> Prof nguyen vows --> published
(THE MISSING LINK TO MAKE THIS FLOW LOGICALLY)
---
important AND well written --> promotion
==
The key here in my opinion is to recognize that the conclusion is a hypothetical. The stimulus is saying that hypothetically, if this book has IMPORTANT and WELL WRITTEN, it'll be published. The hypothetical nature of the conclusion is very important here. We only have to show that if the sufficient condition of the hypothetical is met, the conclusion will follow.
The reason why AC A works is specifically because of the hypothetical nature of the conclusion. If we add
important --> published this yr
We have established that the book being important is sufficient, ON ITS OWN, to bring about publication. Given that being important on its own is enough to be published, the argument DOES logically flow, because if the book is important it will be published. It doesn't matter if the book is not well written. If both sufficient conditions are true, the conclusion WILL follow, because AC A establishes that IMPORTANT --> PUBLISHED
Again, I think it's key to recognize when the conclusion is a hypothetical. Once you realize that we can make this valid by ensuring that the sufficient condition leads to the necessary, it becomes easier to disregard the "AND"
Here, if the conclusion's sufficient conditions are true, only AC A gives us the ability to show that it will lead to the necessary.
I highly recommend using the Sage AI to get through that. You can access it for this question specifically by pressing "notes," pressing on the question number on the popup, and clicking "ask AI." It does help