Wasn't sure about the answer at first, BUT I found a logical map once I saw it was (E). Setup: PC --(some)-- SFI or A --(some)--B SFI -------> RCI or B -------> C PC -------> ~LS or A -------> ~D PC --(many)-- WS or A --(many)--E Where: PC = Planning committee members SFI = Significant F...

This argument concludes that Samantha must be the killer. For this to be true, we could plug in a variety of things to force this. The sufficient assumption in this case was that those two individuals were the only individuals in the room. This forces Samantha to be the killer since Herbert is logi...

Is there any tips on how to eliminate answer choices that are the reverse of what we want? Like (E) vs. (D). in this problem. I usually get it down to the right answer and the reverse but have a hard time eliminating the reverse. Thanks! I'm not sure whether you still care, but... The way I ended u...

@timsportschuetz: However, if the causal statement appears in the CONCLUSION, then we ALWAYS infer that the causal statement is LOGICALLY INVALID! WaltGrace1983: My Thought Process: Here we go again! Correlation and Causation. This argument is saying that, after given some good food for four months...

So, if I were to put in sentential logic form, would it look like this:

Premise: HN --> FS

Intermediary: FS --> BI

Missing Ass: G --> BI

Conclusion: G --> FS

Are there any reasonable differences between 1) Arguments that depend/require etc. and 2) Conclusions that depend/require etc.? If so, what changes/modifications should be made to our strategy? As of now, I weed out 3/5 wrong answer through POE and use the negation technique for the last two. I also...