After rereading the answer choices, none give a contrapositive form to the conditionals laid out in the stimulus. Every conclusion in every answer choice features the necessary conditions of either being justified, or not justified, so the right answer had to be an exact match of either one of the original form conditionals drawn out by JY.

Hope this makes sense/is correct but that's how I thought about it

wondering the same

#help

Im thinking the same, poor answer choice

The stimulus says that the most serious students go to grad school and that all grad students are overworked.

E says that ALL serious students are overworked, trying to trick you into believing that ALL serious students go to grad school thus falling under the statement that "ALL grad students are overworked", when the stimulus states that only MOST serious students go to grad school, not ALL of them. The stimulus saying MOST serious students go to grad school leaves room for interpretation that there could be SOME serious students who don't go to grad school to begin with, making the statement given by E wrong.

Had the stimulus said ALL serious students go to grad school instead of most then E would be correct.

Most --> All (Invalid)

Most --> Some (Valid)

Nice little A-->B-->C chain in the first paragraph

You're exactly right. For example, If a stimulus uses verbiage indicating something is probabilistic, then the answer choice should mirror that reasoning also suggesting that something is probabilistic. Any other answer choice that uses verbiage that indicates something WILL happen or WILL NOT happen is most likely wrong.

I didn't choose E because I didn't find the reasoning flawed. Based on the principle given in the premise, the conclusion/application wasn't flawed. Might not be valid, but def isnt flawed

I was also wondering about this. Can't we just classify the flaw in the stimulus as a mistaken negation of the sufficient and necessary ( A-->B , /A-->/B is invalid) and look for the same flaw in the AC instead of drawing this connection between causal and conditional? Is that what you mean by they "always map the same" ?

#GimmeThat

Will we ever get questions where two answer choices are very close to the stimulus causing us to not only do the shallow dip but also diagram both to see which is correct?

Nevermind, I see its the case with A and D in this question

I ruled out B because B implies that the argument claimed that avoiding dairy is the ONLY way to maintain good health. However, the stimulus does not indicate whether the speaker believes this is the only way to achieve this, or if it is one of many approaches.

I thought based off a video in the lessons prior that "assumptions" are unstated claims in the stimulus, but JY clearly uses the term assumption is this video for something that is clearly stated by the critics #help

wondering this as well #help

I got the answer right and understood that the final sentence was the conclusion. Still, I spent time deliberating on whether the first sentence could have been a conclusion on its own rather than a general statement in my BR. Is there anything that separates the final sentence from the first making it not a general statement but a conclusion? #help.

Never mind, I think I got it. The first sentence in a way gives support to the last sentence where whereas the last sentence doesn't give support to the first sentence, making the last sentence the main conclusion as it only functions by receiving support, not giving it.

Is prescriptive claims usually always wrong in PSA, SA and NA questions? is there any type of question where a prescriptive claim would be correct? Perhaps in a principle question?

fell on my knees in joy and exuberance I finally broke my losing streak

How do you pick the best possible answer using the negation test? In some examples, there are wrong answer choices that seem reasonable once you negate them unless I'm doing it wrong. What's your thought process?

I'm starting to understand SA slowly but surely. Basically, we are looking for a sufficient condition that helps the argument/claim in the conclusion occur. That's how i approached this question which led me to C. Its basically a form of a strengthening question?? #help #feedback

I'm pretty sure that “if eligible → exemplary record” is a mistaken reversal/a sufficient-necessary confusion. So I think it was a lucky error

Would the contrapositive of the conditional laid out in the stimuli be correct ( If a company does not want to hurt its competitor, then it will accept its coupons) be correct? Even though the Checker's is not a part of this membership via the conclusion #help

I know the contrapositive is always logically correct but it seems in this type of question the contrapositive wouldn't apply to this stimuli's conclusion

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they fall under the same umbrella. It's more of an understanding that the approach to addressing the logic in both types of questions is similar. It's becoming more apparent to me after going through these lessons that while the question being asked in the question stem is pivotal, it is more important to realize that all of the questions in LR are in a way connected. It's more about how you see the logic within the arguments rather than focusing precisely on what the question is asking you to do. If that makes sense Lol

Have strong supplemental essays/personal statements. A section on applications allows you to explain why some of your grades may be lower than other applicants. However, I think it's only best to do that section if you have legitimate reasons, so don't BS it. Good luck!

I've been doing these without all the diagramming and for the most part, have been getting the questions right within the target time. Is this viable long-term or will I eventually be dropping questions later on?

Basically, C is the contrapositive of the rule given in the stimulus ?

Would it be correct if B had an "All" instead of "many"? Including the quantifier "All" negates any possibility that the marketing campaign could succeed