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

@Niuniu Zhang also where my brain went

@sophielevitt so basically, relevancy ~= necessarily resolving the discrepancy. also, should've thought more deeply about all answers

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

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

@sophielevitt nvm i remember hehe. for anyone wondering, you can go backwards on double arrows (ie some, none) but not single (all, most)

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.

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

hate this omfg

@SoniaKulkarni its not A

@KMK too real

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.

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

@CamilleChmura i don’t think so rip

@JazmynDouville this one still annoys me but generally i can get them right now haha

@sophielevitt update: they make sense now yayyyy

@8M_M8 sorry just saw this! if i see what i call an exception indicator (unless, until, without), i just read it in my head as 'if not' and so i place it at the front as the sufficient and negate it! for example, unless i have my coffee im tired would be if not coffee then tired

@leechrissal192 that being exactly why i chose it lol

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.

@J.Y. Ping thank you :)

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