I had this same logic... #feedback

Q7 - Overly simplistic doesn't mean that something is wrong? If something is overly simplistic it can still be correct just too simple to reflect the reality of the phenomenon...

Question 5 makes me mad.

I also found this AC tricky. I chose E because I thought the whole analogy had to apply evenly, but I guess only the "expert" part is what matters?

Surely "Avoiding" factual errors means not making them in the first place right? That's what threw me off of C. Overthinking seems to be my kryptonite but I want to blame bad phrasing...

E is really appealing given that "reader and writer becoming confused" isn't a far leap from "cannot be discussed clearly" and then it says that anything that is irrelevant should be discarded quickly. Its frustrating when JY spends no time on an AC that you were confident on and are looking for a thorough explanation as to how to avoid being tricked.

presuming deception --> Company stands to reap

/stand to reap --> /presume deception.

Does this more properly apply?

These lessons seem poorly constructed and all the comments indicate that everyone feels they are hard to understand or unnecessarily complicated. For example on #9 doesn't it make sense to point out

If corporations would reap benefits then consumers should presume deception

reap --> presume deception

/presume deception --> /reap

Why is this not enumerated in the answer? Is making a conditional out of the exception not helpful? It makes it pretty clear that if the exception is met (corporations would reap benefits) then consumers should presume deception

If Pat was a member, then E would be a MBT answer, right?

In question 2, should this not be a valid chain?:

S -> /A -> /R -> J -> B

The answer excludes the Jon bit and just says S -> /A -> /R -> B

7 Sage forgot Jon just like D&D did during the Long Night...

I'm really tired of seeing the same canned response to "when can we get video explanations of this?". You call this unit "Foundations" But have no videos for almost any of the lessons. "V-1" is so different it doesn't feel relevant. Come on like how much are these subscriptions these lessons deserve AT LEAST detailed explanations after each one if not a video to walk through them. People have been leaving comments on here for weeks some even saying "I'm cancelling my subscription".

The reason they have the moments in-between lessons when you try a question on your own and then review it afterwards is to get that practice. He's trying to teach you about a question type before you try it yourself. There's plenty of time for drilling practice questions but you might do better on them after he walks you through this A-B-C-D question type. w

Thank you! This is well explained. As a note to anyone else who is lost on this lesson move on to the next few lessons and come back, it should help complete your understanding!

Why does sufficient always lead to necessary?

Perhaps the idea is that we should account for a shorter target time for certain easier/ lower difficulty questions so that we can have more time for more challenging ones and to return and review questions we've skipped

Seconding this question! #help

I think the issuse is seeing it as an argument presumes other context we don't have. But one fun hypothetical here is what if the person being hugged has asserted that they have not been missed.

The hugger now attempts to argue that he misses the individual being hugged: "I am hugging you because I missed you"

The premise is: "I am hugging you because..."but the conclusion is "I missed you"

Rephrased (more reasonably): Premise: "Since I am hugging you" Conclusion: "... I missed you"

idk if this makes any sense but hey