A = DirectMailAdvertising

B = Environmental Damage

If you take out the conclusion, the question becomes an RRE.

From that, you have "5% were expected to be defective, but 20% turned out to be"

"WHY?"

bc "field inspectors only chose those items which they suspected to be defective"

Then to convert it to a flaw, you re-introduce the conclusion and say the author overlooked the resolving fact.

Hope this helps, fwiw i chose (B)

kinda dumb but I missed this bc i didn't know what "I.e" stood for properly. I always thought it indicated an example and thus read the last sentence as " Any social philosophy that countenances (permits) choas, for example anarchy,"instead of "Any social philosophy that countenances chaos, in other words anarchy"

Reading it like this completely clears that there is an illicit term shift. I spent so long reading "ie" as "for example" that I was so confused on how to proceed on the question since no other AC but (A) makes sense, but I wasn't comfortable with (A) bc I did not make the connection that the term had in fact shifted. I thought it was moreso making an assumption that absence of govt = chaos.

almost fell for (D).....thank god for this v2 curriculum

I know this is 4 years too late to be helpful to you, but it could help someone in the future. I got q16 quite easily and this is how i did it:

I usually have trouble with analogy questions, so I told myself that I wouldn't try to "make an analogy" myself, rather I went into the ACs and forced myself to let the ACs speak to me. I wanted to get a feeling that an answer was right, or that it was analogous, on first blush. (D) quickly stood out to me bc it involved sourcing and piecing together information. After a quick look through all the other ACs, i went back to (D) to make some final sense of it.

The way I made sense of (D):

"A child [scientist] seeking money [explanation] to attend a movie [for coherance] is given some of the money by one of his siblings [knows that 10% of universe matter is observable] and so decides to go to each of his other siblings [neutrinos, other forms of dark matter, etc] to ask [discover/investigate] for additional money[additional sources of matter]"

more than just that, this analogy is essentially like crowd sourcing. The scientists are tryna account for all the mass of the universe by finding all the different types of mass that the universe contains, similar to the child trying to buy his ticket by asking all of his siblings for money.

WOW! I totally assumed the implied hypothesis that the foods w BC were just that much better than the supplements in providing BC. I totally did not see (E) coming and denying that implicit hypothesis while also resolving the discrepancy. Great question, great answer. tricky tricky

I got this right during an untimed drill but it took forever. I was down to A,B and C as viable options. I couldn't discern which was better so I stopped, paused, and anchored myself to the stimulus and Qstem. As a Necessary Assumption, we are supposed to fill a gap in the argument. I went line-by-line connecting each sentence until I found the gap. The stim said that bacteria causes cleaning products to degrade and that these products are in the landfill. Therefore, the landfill is dangerous. Aha! Are there even any bacteria in the landfill? That was never said. this is the necessary assumption for the argument to work.

I think I can help,

For MSS-MBT questions, what is meant by an assumption gap between stimulus and correct answer is like if a question talked about raptors becoming chickens. and then the correct AC would be something like "some reptiles are the evolutionary predecessor to fowl" It would require the assumption that raptors are a type of reptile. We both know this and it is a reasonable assumption, so its ok. But if an AC said something like "it is not uncommon to see predatory species become prey" that would require assuming raptors are predatory and chickens are prey, which they could be, or could not be depending on what animals they are being compared with.

For the RRE-W-S-E questions it would be like the above example of Det. Conan

hope this helped

Nah it would still be wrong since its not a MBT, but a "merely consistent with" type trap answer. We know that the level of oxygen depletes bc of bacteria consuming the oxygen when feeding on plankton. Though the phosphorus causes the growth of plankton which in turn leads to the bacteria consuming the oxygen, the phosphorus doubling here acts like a sufficient condition. The bacteria can still consume oxygen even in the absence of the doubling of phosphorus.

Something that I've been doing for these lessons is creating a drill in a separate tab with the question and doing it before watching the video lesson. I find this helps me track errors in my own reasoning and compare to JYs. Basically making each lesson a "you try" helps a lot

great question that demonstrates using the ACs to guide you

#feedback#help

I did this question like this:

Domain: West Calverton

ps ‑m→ EB ‑m→ TF

PsTFEB → SG

SG (IndepOwned)

----------------------------

(PsTFEB) (IndepOwned)

is this wrong or just another way of doing it? I didn't make being independently owned a condition, rather I left it as a type/example of pet store. I guess this would be considered kicking it up to the domain but not sure.

Yes! The Quizzes on the foundational conditional logic section of the CC! Esp relevant is the one on "kicking it up to the domain".

#feedback I agree

A modern example of (B) is:

A large portion of the NBA watching population believe that the Denver Nuggets will win the 2023 NBA Finals based off regular season play between the two teams (easy analysis). However, to convince heat fans and jimmy butler this would require actually winning all the games (much harder).

heat in 6

The argument says "No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor."

Take one sentence at a time and translate it into Lawgic:

(1) "No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery."

"Unless" indicates Group 3, which is negate sufficient. You pick either idea and negate it. Since this premise contains a "no" in one of the concepts, it is a good idea to negate that one.

This statement then becomes, in Lawgic, G→B, OR B → G

(2) "Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor."

Simple conditional translation, If B, then G OR B→G

So the entire argument reads:

G→B

--------

B→ G

this is the suf-nec confusion

#feedback Yeah, I didn't even think of it until your comment, but the spacing between the negation and contrapositive lessons make it harder for those concepts to click and make it harder to recognize their distinction.

Yo, so you know its an inclusive or because it doesn't say "or, but not both". You can also see that it is implied because it says S or T will get adopted. Which means that one of them MUST be adopted, but because of the no "not both" it doesn't rule out the possibility that both can be. Basically, one of S/T must be adopted, but the rule is silent on whether or not both can be included, which means it is inclusive.

It also goes to conditionality. S→T, if you fail the sufficient (i.e. S is in), then the possibility of T remaining exists. But if T, then you know S is forsure in. On the other hand, If T is in, then you just confirm the necessary which makes the rule fall away and S is free to be in or out.

great comment, thank you

I got this right after a long time of staring at it, the key to me was not the "close orbit" element in the conditional as JY brought up, but rather my conditional was [Maintain orbit→BHS]

The context tells us that ring of gas has been observed in a stable orbit.

So it just goes: [Maintain Orbit → BHS]

[MO] from the context that we know the orbit has been stable

----------------------------------

BHS

pm me

This one took me a second. In talking about flagellums, the author makes a claim about swimming in the premises and then concludes something about survival advantage. There is somewhat of a "hole" or gap in that. (B) is the only one that links those two ideas to make sense of what the author is saying

rip the rocket

The word "paradoxically" in Q7 really screwed me up, since it seemed like a paradox to have an authentic version that can portray something in a more inauthentic light like the Passage says. I realize now that yes there is a paradox, but I was misreading where that paradox is. The paradox is between spending all this effort in creating a directors cut, only for it to not show ("exhibit") the DC in an authentic way (with other programs). That's what (D) picks up on.

I essentially noticed the domain shift, but couldn't articulate it both timed and BR, but saw that the stimulus concluded something basic and so did (D). All others, with the exception of (B) concluded much more and were eliminated based on that. While (B) was eliminated bc it says "some". I only really looked at (C) (D) and (E).