Hey, I have a v simple formal diagram, does this work? E - > /STP AND UE So not supporting the new tax plan AND understanding economics are the two necessary conditions for a chance of being elected. Therefore one only need attack one such necessary condition to make the statement fail. This is d...

Hey, there. I would encourage you not to think of anything in either this stimulus or answer choice (E) as a conditional statement. Conditional logic is really only helpful/applicable when there is a conditional language trigger in the stimulus or answer choice. (Triggers such as: [suff:] if, when,...

Also, another reason why it seems like a logical leap is that, just because they lessen the pain and distress, does that automatically equate an increase in efficiency? Maybe they have to compromise that very efficiency (whatever that may be) in order to ameliorate the pain and distress. or maybe th...

I think this argument can be understood quite simply, as follows: If we do A then B, Why? Because when we did C, we got B So A - > B Because C -> B So what's the inherent assumption here? The assumption is that C must be like A. The best way to weaken the conclusion is to prove that C is not i...

I, like most, picked D here too. But in retrospect (what do they say about hindsight?) the answer was pretty clear. The first statement says if you want to succeed, you should act as though you're genuinely confident. The second states that those who are genuinely confident are more likely to succee...

I've hit upon something that other people don't seem to have addressed so i'm wondering if i'm getting this wrong or it basically solves the entire dilemma. If you read the question stem carefully, it actually asks "which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflic...

Wait, Why is B wrong here? Can someone elucidate me on this? If expert witnesses have sometimes been known to fudge data, that is enough to undermine the conclusion. Whether it is for or against the prosecution is irrelevant. If the data MIGHT be fudged, then that leaves us with pretty large skepti...

I found that the validity of A is much easier seen when we rearrange the language but keep the same meaning. so "The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested" can be changed to "the understanding of all other new drugs b...

Okay let's get through this. A) is incorrect because it is a CLASSIC mistaken negation. The stimulus concludes that since we don't know, we should not act don't know -> don't act Answer choice A negates this to say if we know -> act (mistaken negation). B) is the correct answer. This is a gene...

I kept reading the explanations above for several times, but I still don't understand why B is wrong. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks in advance! I think the answer to this question relies on using conditional reasoning in a slightly unconventional way. Hear me out. This is what we know Code: MFB ...

I still have some question regarding "a grp of ppl" vs "many grps of ppl" So, the reason why D is wrong is that, "a grp of ppl" here means a certain grp of ppl, D says many grps of ppl. Since we don't know if this statement could apply to rest of the ppl except that ce...