@zermeenadurrani118 said:

@catcasa483 said:

np. If you have A --> B or C and you are given C, then no you wouldn't have A ---> B remain as a rule bc A --> B or C doesn't necessarily translate into

A --> B

A --> C

It CAN because "B or C" always implies "or both" but it doesn't necessarily have to so you can't presume it always does. I feel like you have to remember that only sufficient conditions (A) trigger anything. So if you are given a necessary condition (C), that doesn't do anything/change any rules/nothing falls away. The only time I can think of C making any difference given A --> B or C is in the case of the contrapositive where /B and /C ---> /A so if you don't have C, then you can't have A. Otherwise, C doesn't trigger anything.

just to follow up - if we have

A --> B or C

and we find out /C

would we be able to conclude /A?

never mind - figured it out

@catcasa483 said:

np. If you have A --> B or C and you are given C, then no you wouldn't have A ---> B remain as a rule bc A --> B or C doesn't necessarily translate into

A --> B

A --> C

It CAN because "B or C" always implies "or both" but it doesn't necessarily have to so you can't presume it always does. I feel like you have to remember that only sufficient conditions (A) trigger anything. So if you are given a necessary condition (C), that doesn't do anything/change any rules/nothing falls away. The only time I can think of C making any difference given A --> B or C is in the case of the contrapositive where /B and /C ---> /A so if you don't have C, then you can't have A. Otherwise, C doesn't trigger anything.

just to follow up - if we have

A --> B or C

and we find out /C

would we be able to conclude /A?

I feel like the first line where they talk about comparing two different chess playing programs is just a distraction to get you thinking about comparing different programs.

But as you read on they only talk about comparing the same program on different computers.

Your question as to why?

just a made up scenario to your question why you would compare 1 program on different computers...It provides slightly different output depending on the computer.

Example: It seems that my friend always has a better chance of winning than me.. My friend says it is because he is better than me but we want to rule out it is not because of computer speed allowing him to win...so we test same program- diff computers. then we find out it is because my friend's computer is faster than mine- meaning it can examine more moves and hence increases his chances of winning even though same program.

Edit: made it less confusing

interested

@catcasa483 said:

hey yeah you still run the contrapositive because the contrapositive is:

/B or /C --> /A (like you said) which can be broken down into:

/B ----> /A

/C ---> /A

so if you are given /C then it gives you /A

I'm not sure what you mean about (A-->B) as a remaining rule. Your rule is (A --> B and C), nothing about this changes.

Thank you for clearing that up. How about

In the case A --> B or C

and we find out C is satisfied - would that part of rule fall away and would still have A --> B remaining?

especially in the context of logic game, this rule confused me^

@wraith985-4026 said:

We need to reframe the issue a bit. 'Overthinking' is not the problem. If you blame 'overthinking', then you're suggesting that more time to think about the problem is a bad thing.

It's not that you're 'overthinking' - you're thinking wrong. It has nothing to do with how many times you see the question. Someone with perfect logic would give you the same analysis every single time, no matter how many times you showed him the same question and no matter how many different (wrong) interpretations of it you try to feed him. The problem lies with you talking yourself into a bad line of reasoning and abandoning a good line of reasoning for it, which is a skills problem every single time.

To fix it, you need to be able to understand why those lines of reasoning are no good, not just try to cut your process off at the perfect time to avoid the mistake that you're about to make. Or in other words, rather than wonder how you can have more confidence in your first instinct, it really ought to be the exact opposite - you should be learning that you shouldn't have confidence (yet) in your first instinct, because you are not yet capable of distinguishing good reasoning from bad reasoning. The goal, then, is not to prop up unwarranted confidence - it is to develop the skills necessary to ensure that any confidence that you do feel is warranted.

Always remember that "trust my gut" is not a problem solving methodology.

Wow incredibly insightful. thanks so much!!!! Will reflect on this.

I just realized the difference in what 12 C is saying vs. what the lines in the end of the second paragraph say

passage says our failure to recognize we are making inferences leads us to think that we are infalliable (perfect)in IDENTIFYING what we think because we think "oh I am perceiving it directly" so "I can't be identifying my thoughts wrong"

whereas C says we develop an increased tendency to ignore our own errors in judgement within that field

Mistaking whether our thoughts are inferential or direct is different from making mistakes in judgements within a game of chess

how/when/where do we select the date and time we want to write it

@zermeenadurrani118 said:

It doesn't look like they have announced a date by which they will announce changes. They announced the early June test change at the very end of April. So I imagine they will announce July around a month before as well.

good to know, thank you

I think its fine to do so for this question but if it was an assumption question or something - you would have to be careful because a slightly different word (tends to vs. =) can mean a whole different interpretation and error.

Saw this explanation on a forum online: B is the correct answer choice, because it tells us that the products

purchased as a result of direct-mail marketing are actually replacing, and not just additional to, the

products people would have bought without the use of direct-mail marketing.

@zermeenadurrani118 said:

Yes. It is very possible. It is a matter of figuring out what is keeping your timed score from matching your blind review score. Some questions to think about are:

What did you do differently in BR that you didn't do under time?

For each individual problem: what caused you to miss it under time?

Did you rush under the time pressure and misread something?

Did you fall for a time trap which caused you to miss other problems because you had to rush through them?

Are you familiar with the game type? You may need to focus on Fool Proofing that type for a while if not.

Did you spend enough time working on the game board in the beginning?

If you can answer these questions, you can then implement strategies to change your approach under time. It may look like slowing down to help you stay calm or skipping certain questions until the end when you know you have got all the low hanging fruit. There are a lot of solutions but the first step is to figure out what is happening that needs to be addressed.

Thank you so much for giving me some things to think about !!!

Completely understood this in blind review but not a clue when I did it timed.

studying for july! meena96@jshiver853.com

I meant to write if no [unmonitored internet conversations], we are failing at meeting the general broad principle of democracy

This is how i tried to understand it

Line 1: General broad Principle: Democracy requires sharing ideas freely..without fear

Line 2: X (unmonitored conversations) is essential to democracy.

Why should I believe this? Because X falls under (sharing ideas freely)

For this reason^

Line 3: if we are not able to have a specific type of X

X* ( unmonitored internet conversations), we are failing at meeting the general broad principle (of democracy)

Why? Because X is needed for democracy (line 2) and Why do we think x is needed? because it falls under broad principle mentioned in line 1.

any thoughts?

#help what would the correct negation of B be?

lab conditions that ..blah blah.. can be unhealthy for animals.

It is not the case that lab conditions that... can be unhealthy for animals"

so

Would it be "lab conditions could be healthy" or

"lab conditions that ... must be healthy - "

Please explain why it would be which one if you know. Thanks!

meena96@jshiver853.com