It isn’t placing L and O in the same shift- this question is testing your understanding of could/complete discussed on page 384. So: G, L, M, and O can each work on the first shift with H, they just can’t all do so at the same time.

(A) is bad because “most” can mean just over 50%- it doesn’t weaken the argument at all to know that just over 50% of the boulders haven’t been moved more than 100 miles, because that means that just under 50% HAVE been moved more than 100 miles.

(D) does weaken the argument a bit- if there ARE no geological sources of volcanic rock north of this boulder, it seems likely that there WERE…Read More

I think that splitting this game into different worlds is worth the time (there’s only 3, right?), but the game is also very doable without splitting into worlds. So, even if you don’t split this game into worlds, I wouldn’t skip #5 in real time: We can cross off (A) given the work in #3 (there’s a scenario there where it’s just L and G in the car), then work through (B) and (C) to show…Read More

Exactly 🙂

Conditional language (“if”, “unless”…) and matching terms are definitely good , but not perfect, indicators. I guess my main focus is always on figuring out why the author thinks they have presented a good argument, and then poking a hole (or holes) in their argument. If there aren’t any good indicators that conditional reasoning is involved, and I’m able to point out something wrong…Read More

I definitely don’t approach any of the question types thinking that it is likely to involve conditional reasoning. Which questions from 64 did you get burned on?

Yeah, I don’t think understanding conditional reasoning is important on this question. Focusing on the conditional reasoning doesn’t really have anything to do with the question type- it’s just a matter of when it’s required to understand what’s going on in the stimulus.

Think about the negation of E: Qualified teachers could be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the…Read More

Here are a few thoughts to start with:

(1) If you see the gap but can’t really articulate it, I would encourage you to spend a bit more time working on being able to articulate it- the extra time spent up front figuring out the stimulus really pays off when going through the answer choices. Out of the question types that you listed, I think sufficient assumption questions are probably…Read More

If H-> not G works the same way as my hypothetical example above of if J->not S. So, if not J->S means that J and S can’t both be out, but they could both be in. If H->not G means that H and G can’t both be in, but they could both be out.

Awesome addition Dan 🙂

This is definitely an important type of rule to understand: not J -> S means that you can’t have both J and S out, because when J is out then S is in, and when S is out then J is in. However, just because you can’t have both J and S out, this doesn’t preclude J and S both being IN. Given the rule and its contrapositive, if J is in then S could be either in or out. Likewise, if S is in…Read More

Yeah I think so, as long as you’re precise with respect to what the effect is- namely, the progression in the increase of time it takes to leave the parking space.

Our task here is to provide an alternative explanation for the differences in the time it takes to leave a parking space- it takes longer to leave if another car is waiting for the spot than if no one is waiting for the spot, and it takes longer to leave if the car waiting for the spot is honking impatiently rather than waiting quietly.

The main problem with (B) is that it discusses the…Read More

“However, if this were the only rule followed, then whenever one were presented with any kind of evidence, one would have to either reject some of one’s beliefs or else leave one’s beliefs unchanged.”
Let’s say I have a million beliefs. According to the statisticians, I shouldn’t add to or subtract from that set of one million beliefs (that’s part of what it means when they say “never…Read More

I think that one of the reasons why this question is kind of tricky is because it can be hard at first to see what’s wrong with the argument- but it’s a strengthen question, so we know that the argument is indeed flawed. I’ll set up the reasoning structure first and then explain what’s wrong.

Conclusion: The number of early Byzantine documents sealed with lead seals must have been much…Read More

Yeah, I don’t think this is a good game to split into multiple scenarios (as it was done on 7sage), and I don’t think I’d ever split a game into 6(!) scenarios. In general, a good rule of thumb when thinking about splitting a game into multiple scenarios is that you shouldn’t bother splitting if it’s going to result in more than 4 scenarios. So, besides the U/V “inference” (very…Read More

Definitely worthwhile to notate inferences about where elements cannot go 🙂

ooops, sorry, didn’t see that Mike already provided an excellent explanation 🙂

You are correct to infer that R cannot be in the first position 🙂 If there were only three total candidates [P, O, R], and P must come before both O and R, then yes P would have to go first, with O going either second or third and R going either second or third.

However, there are six total candidates, so while P could go first, it doesn’t have to. Since there are two candidates that…Read More

When Helena claims that extroversion is not biologically determined, I think this is most naturally interpreted as meaning that biology is not the only influence on whether or not one grows up to be extroverted, as her evidence for the claim is that non-biological factors seem to have an effect on whether or not one grows up to be extroverted. Jay, however, interprets Helena as claiming t…Read More