This was definitely a hard one to break down. But for anyone that needs help, choose the choice that most affects the conclusion of the stimulus, in this case hypothesis. I chose E and was completely lost for a few minutes as to why I got this wrong. I would still argue that E is a correct choice and definitely a plausible explanation that ultimately supports the argument, but not more than A does. As confusing as it seems, A is the only answer choice that provides support for the conclusion that there's burrowing activity occurring which is causing the fairy circles. Remember, don't get lost in the premises, use them as guides to provide context for the conclusion!

Yep nope, don't get this one.

Anyone else completely lost on this one?

I'm just a little confused on the answer choice. I mean, don't get me wrong, I can get how you can draw that assumption from the premises, but I purposely eliminated that questions because in the Lesson 2 question, he said if an answer choice starts with the conclusion and is followed by something else it's automatically wrong. Just feel like I'm not really getting anywhere.

Not sure if anyone else is having this issue. So far this specific type of LR question has been really stumping me. I'll watch the videos and I'll understand the lesson, and then I'll dissect (or try to) dissect the argument and translate it into lawgic, and then at that point I'm still lost on the question. It hasn't been with every question, but most questions within this Sufficient Assumption set have me making this sort of mistake. #help

I don't really understand why B does not weaken the stimulus. I understand that it is not the correct answer, simply due to the fact that it does not satisfy the analogy, but if we're under the assumption that the telecommunications and the national parks industry are similar, and if the telecommunications industry were to tank because of privatization, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume the national parks industry would follow suit? I'm just confused on that concept #help

It's not a bad idea to listen to the explanations. Sometimes I feel the same way, but in hindsight, getting the full explanation on why the other answers are wrong will ultimately help you parse through the passage and through the wrong answers. You never know, maybe in the video he explains something you may have missed.

Thank you for clarifying!

For question 4, "The number of beneficial soil bacteria increases whenever plant material is mixed into garden soil. However, in order to mix plant material into garden soil, one must know how to cast the Herbivicus Charm." Can anyone explain to me how "mixed" is the sufficient condition for both claims? I'm slightly confused on that #help

Not sure if this will offer much help but what usually helps me is reverting back to the original cat and mammal claim presented in the first lesson on sufficiency and necessity. The way I think of what is sufficient and what is necessary is what is enough versus what is required. Simply put, don't overthink it, try to use these same indicators on the cat argument:

Sufficient

If one is a cat, then one is mammal.

Here, it is telling you that if you are a cat, then it is enough for you to be a mammal.

Necessary

One is a cat only if one is a mammal.

Here is where it gets different. In this sense, it is basically saying to be a cat, it is required to be a mammal.

It is NOT required to be a cat in order to be a mammal, just as it is not enough to be a mammal in order to be a cat.

Now use this and apply it to the instance at hand. The only thing the argument gave to us was that Kumar showed up to school 17+ minutes late. That's it, that is all we know. There is no further sentence or claim saying he was caught by the teacher or anything of the sort. We just know he was late. Therefore, he fulfills what is required for him to be late, but it is not enough to guarantee he was cited late. In short, think of the word "only" as a requirement. You can be a cat ONLY if you are a mammal. You can be cited as late ONLY if you show up 5+ minutes after the bell. Hope that helped, this is something I often struggle with too.

So for question 8, I know he said receive and not deny cannot be equated, but given the context of the statement, would "/denied" still be correct? Given it is the reasonable assumption that it is healthcare professionals who are not denying people treatment?

For number 8, wouldn't the first part of the question have monkeys as the sufficient condition. The indicator word is "without", so wouldn't you negate monkeys? Translating to, "If there were no monkeys, then we could not have explored space."

I'm completely lost on number 4 #help

I thought the same thing. Not really sure why either. #help

Break apart the question little by little: Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb. If he doesn't kill Arya, he cannot kill Robb. He cannot kill both Arya and Sansa. If he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon.

First part: Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb. Obviously, that's an inclusive "or," meaning one or the other with the possibility of both, but it has to be at least one of them. So, with that said, choose one of them to be the sufficient and negate that. In this case, let's just choose Bran to negate, Bran represented by "B" and Robb represented by "R"...

/B → R (If Joffrey does not kill Bran, then he must kill Robb).

Now that one part is done, you can look at the following premises. The second part, if he does not kill Arya, then he cannot kill Robb. However, going back to our previous lawgic translation, Joffrey must kill Robb because he is not killing Bran, so then he therefore has to kill Arya too. This would imply a double negative or a double positive lawgic translation:

/A → /R (If he does not kill Arya, then he cannot kill Robb)

R → A (If he kills Robb, then he must kill Arya)

The third part, "He cannot kill both Arya and Sansa. Again, base it off of what you already have depending on which way you went with the argument. So, in this case since we chose for Joffrey to kill Robb (implied), and therefore must also kill Arya, then he cannot kill Sansa. This would then negate the necessary condition...

A → /S

Lastly, if he does not kill Robb, then he must kill Jon. Once again, putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, we know in this specific instance if Joffrey did not kill Bran, then he must've killed Robb, so therefore he does not kill Jon.

Stringing it all together it should look like this:

/B → R → A → /S

/J → R

I apologize if this is over-explaining. The point of me taking it all apart is to show that if you're confused on how to chain the conditionals, break each piece apart first, and then put them together into a chain. Analyze the premises of the argument carefully and refer back to what you've already figured out and apply it in the context that makes the most logical sense. I hope this helps!

#help I'm confused on how there is a silent conditional on question 5.1 (Roman amphitheaters always contain water fountains). Wouldn't always be viewed as a necessary condition? In other words, if it is a Roman amphitheater, then it must have a water fountain. This would then make the Roman amphitheater the sufficient condition, because a place may contain water fountains, but also not be a Roman amphitheater. I used this reasoning and got the question correct, but I don't really understand why there is not necessarily a condition present within the sentence. Just need some clarification.

So, the second example cannot be broken apart into two separate sentences based upon its conjunction right? Meaning, the word "or" suggests that either Ron or Harry will enroll in charms class, not necessarily both, so you then need to keep it one sentence. #help

For the second example, I kind of understand why "its supports base" refers to the authoritarian regime. However, is it also possible that it can also be referring to the word "society"?

I'm just having some trouble differentiating when there's a predicate object and a modifier. Somethings seem to be specific, which would come off as a modifier, when its the predicate object. Just a little confused on that.

How can you tell the difference between the sub and main conclusion? A few questions in section 2 stumped me because I feel either conclusion can serve as both the main and sub conclusion.