went w a bc i was like what does speed limits have to do w/ seatbelt laws the stimulus doesn't mention that lol.... and didn't even rlly look at e i just went like oh not wearing seatbelts killed this must be relevant without thinking it through

i hate overthinking! got 12 wrong because i was like oh well what if oil reserves are slightly different than oil wells and so even though the passage directly mentions that they occur in rock, maybe they're different so its unsupported

are there any lessons that directly just go over abstracting arguments/common patterns to recognize? i know various questions are analyzed this way and some patterns are mentioned in the valid formal logic inferences section but i'd love to just straight see all of the most common argument forms alltogether in a list.

Will there be a recording of the webinar? Unfortunately, I'll be at work during that time.

i hate this so much lol shouldn't all within the context of a question indicate what's already in the domain (it being a horror story) ahhh

used process of elimination. A was hard to understand so i skipped it my first round and was able to eliminate the rest easily. after re-reading a, i understood it as essentially saying yes there are less thieves now but of the thieves left, there's less smart ones that know how to properly steal without being caught

omg i hate grammar. I misread A because of the comma

reading the explanation and yet i am still confused ! this question is so confusing ! i hate when all the words just blend together like this lol

my issue being types of passages (ie philosophical ones) and not the styles of them lol

my intuition was actually right on this but i still got the answer wrong because i didn't trust myself and wanted to go w/ an answer that had stronger language. whoops!

i was trying to do a skeleton of the stimuli + made a conditional diagram which ended up working fine for me (i saw the flaw as mistaking the necessary condition for the sufficient condition). is this similar enough to a causal reasoning error of there potentially being other factors at play/necessary but not enough or should i not be viewing it as a diagram

While it is true that two methods can produce identical results, how is this a flaw?

can you go backwards in the chain? got this right but wanted to check

so does truth of premises include implicit ones? i went with c because i thought that he agreed that they would need to stop for help if they were lost, he just disagreed that they are lost, thus rejecting the conclusion.

understood the implicit premise part on my blind review but got wrong on blind review as well - went w/ a thinking that there was no REASON behind rejecting the premise, just that it was rejected.

tbh even w/ indicators, you can still get stuff wrong if you read the grammar wrong so it's good to have a conceptual understanding point blank

i find it easiest to just read the exception indicators as 'if not' instead of following the rule of choosing one, negating it, and making it sufficient

really confused here.... i saw all of the support as dependent on the support before it (ie the rise prevents the mixing and this restricts the nutrients and then its an example of this phenomenon). i'm kinda seeing how it can c can qualify but i feel like b is just a more specific description of c; since an example of vertical mixing would show how global temp changes affect animals ?

i thought since caffeine was being compared, it meant that it was not psychoactive lmfao

hate this omfg

i got this wrong because i completely forgot about the second part of the conclusion regarding sharing the threat to other crows and only focused on that the threat could be recognized.

this confused the heck out of me bc of jones theory and that not being explained/not knowing what it is.

so is the initial second premise a contrapositive of this pattern? i think that’s what tripped me up

me when i yet again accidentally select the answer that strengthens instead of weakens

went w/ a immediately bc i was like oh it has the same necessary sufficient thing going on, and the conclusion matters more for parallel reasoning than parallel flaw. but i guess intrinsic to this flaw is it being causal.

misread a as saying that some other organisms can also resist cancer. not that they can do it as well as sharks. need to get better at reading