I hate these questions, they truly are the bane of my existence, and study. I am not sure what I am missing, but I am just not accurate with these questions. How did you guys better understand this question type? what was your technique, and what made them click for you? In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question, but for me, the harder ones just seem impossible without mapping. Also, sometimes mapping is difficult due to my inability to identify which is the sufficient, and which is the necessary condition. With the latter issue, there are no conditional words for guidance. How does one become better at identifying the sufficient/necessary condition without the trigger words being present (aside from just practice of course because once I finish the 7sage course, practice is all I will be doing).
Comments
With MBT questions, you have to maintain a high (read:absolute) standard of proof for the answer choices. For example, if the answers introduce a new variable all of a sudden, it is likely wrong because it wouldn't have the support needed for a MBT. Anything that could be false should be eliminated right away.
Personally, I like to map out my conditions because unless you have a really good intuition, you might get something wrong or make a silly mistake. Plus, mapping out conditions, especially if you're well versed in conditional lawgic, should not take more than a few seconds.
1) Underlined "most"; bracketed "without doing" through "of their own."
2) Underlined "some"; bracketed "rely solely" through "advice."
3) Underlined "Other"; bracketed "do some" through "hunches."
4) Underlined "Only a few"; bracketed "always do" through "before investing."
5) Underlined "majority of ... make a profit"
2-4 are all "some" statements.
1 and 5 are most, of "investors," and thus most/most of the same group (investors) means some investors who do not do any research make a profit.
I zero in on what is going to help me the most. What are the groups, and where do they overlap?
Let's go to the AC's.
A) Well that's the intersection I found above. Keep it and check once I've eliminated the others.
No way to get to most from two somes. Eliminate.
C) We know that most people make a profit, but what if these idiots (the "some" of #3) are the outliers? Unsupported due to lack of existential inference. Eliminate.
D) A most from a some (the most/most inference). No way. Eliminate.
E) A most from a most/some. No way. Eliminate.
I've eliminated B-E. A fits my pre-phrase/inference. Let's check it. Nope, I haven't missed anything; a some from a most/most intersection is valid. A it is.
Post-game analysis:
Most people who invest (A) do so without any research on their own (B). Most people who invest (A) make a profit (C). Most A's are B's. Most A's are C's. Some B's are C's. A says some people make a profit (C) don't research (B). In other words, some C's are B's.
I recognized that the question was a MBT, began with most, and had a bunch of some statements throughout, ultimately finishing with a most statement. I know that there are no valid conclusions you can make by combining 2 some statements or a some and a most statement; the only way any sort of inference can be pulled out of here is if the two most statements have the same "sufficient" side variable, which would produce a some statement inference of the two "necessary" side variables (because of the overlap Nicole mentioned above).
From practice, this recognition was almost instantaneous, and it allowed me to focus in on the two most statements directly, largely ignoring everything thing else. From here I simply drew the valid inference and looked to the answer choices, and A is exactly this inference! So I moved on, like this was a LG question.
The point is if you know what you are looking for you can anticipate what form the answers are going to take, which can make the question a whole lot easier. Cutting through all the nonsense and arriving at the right AC quickly. Win-win.