bro is just spamming this response lol

Yes, as A‑m→B implies A←s→B. So you either write it as "A‑m→B" or "A←s→B" and it is logically the same.

No, because exactly half of people could like ice cream. Saying less than half would be excluding 50%. Saying less than or equal to half of people like ice cream could work.

Thinking im getting the hang of this now

Tell me why I didn't think you could have 3 NAs....

You would be correct with that thinking. If the farmers know their income, it would be sufficient to the Taxes being Calculated and Submitted. However, if it were the other way around, Taxes being Calculcated and Submitted is not sufficient to farmers knowing their income, because as you mentioned, they could still be unaware of their income (maybe not enough time has passed, etc.)

My best advice to give to you is to choose the "concept" or idea that comes immediately after the conditional indicator "Until". You can choose either concept but i prefer to use the concept that comes after the indicator word, which in this case is tax returns are calculated and submitted the following april (TC&S FA). This would then become the sufficient, and then you negate the idea.

The Necessary condition is the other concept, which is farmers not knowing their income for a given year. The "not" negates the concept, so you use a / for the Lawgic.

/ TC&S FA -> /KI

Did not get this question right on the PT exam, but at revisiting it, I felt C was right. Not sure if it is because i saw the answer before or what. Completely missed the assumption made by the argument too. AC just felt right and im hoping its because my understanding is better now and its not due to already seeing the answer in the past.

I have not even started the modulesyet but this makes a lot of sense.

Dude this was such a good explanation.

THIS is such a great idea I don't know why I havent thought of it before. Thank you

Here is me giving my best shot at making an analogous argument.

My new box of juice was opened and left empty on the ground in the basement. My brother is in the basement playing video games, burping often like he does after drinking anything. As a result, I believe my brother drank my juice and left the trash on the ground.

I almost had this shit in BR, but reasoned myself out of A

This is definitely helpful, thanks for sharing.

I am really just lost and confused on this questions

#help (Added by Admin)

Typically I don't forget it's a weaken except question, but this time I did and I got it wrong because of it.

I narrowed it down to C and B, and originally went with C during timed. C looks to be the 2nd most common answer, so hopefully this advice as to why C is was wrong (to me). The line "even though these books were unlikely to make a profit" hinted that AC C was wrong. The way I thought of it was if it was "often" as it was stated in AC C to be profitable, they wouldn't have consistently thought it was unlikely to make a profit as stated in the stimulus. Idk if what I am typing even makes sense but I am typing it out hoping to help myself understand better.

Think of it like this. The author's conclusion is that the lab animal findings are not applicable to humans, because the lab animals tend to eat more than they would naturally (if they weren't in a lab), which then leads to shorter lives for the lab animals. AC A essentially refutes this, saying that North Americans are just like the lab animals because they eat more than they are naturally supposed to. Because they both over eat, it weakens the author's conclusion because they are analogous. The author believed that they weren't analogous, but AC A says they are.

While doing this question, I attacked the premises by going with A and did realize it. I figured this might be a scenario when you would attack the premises, and did consider B but went with A. I understand that's what I did wrong, if anyone did the same I'm with you

I considered B in BR, but when my thought process was that it was possible, as they defined IB as similar ATS I figured that was good enough. I see where I went wrong now.

can someone explain to me why A attacks the long drawn out trial premise?

I did pretty good -4 for the first 3 passages but got railed by this passage. I got a -5...

I originally had A but second guessed myself in BR. Good to know I was on the right track.

Now that you mention that, it makes sense.

I have the same problem but for this question in particular it's unreasonable (unless you're literally a god at logic) will take considerable time, but especially over 50 seconds.