Lost

You can access the video explanation for this question by pressing the "play" button on the screen. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Are the explanations for the answers to logic games supposed to be in video format? All I get is the audio and it's difficult to visualize what the instructor is writing on his/her paper. Also the instructors refer to pages when presenting a lesson. Was there supposed to be a workbook of some sort that I am supposed to be following along on?

We are aware of the issue with only audio in the videos. Our developers have just sent an update out so the issue will be fixed within the next few days. So sorry for the inconvenience! When you purchased the course, we sent you a "Welcome Packet" on October 14th, 2014 that has a pdf of all the lessons in the course. That is what Mehran is referring to in the lecture. You can print it out and follow along. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I assume the update also fixes the problem with the app crashing when selecting the game setup option?

Yes that will be fixed in this update, as well!

I looked through all of my email including my trash and I never received the welcome packet. Is there a link to the PDF or can you email it to ridgalino@me.com?

No problem. We are sending it over again right now!

I was having a problem with either/or statements so I went back through the lessons from the beginning and I think I found the route of my problem. Why on either/or statements why can both x and y be possible? Take the following example: At the fork in the road either turn left or turn right. If Left than not right If Right than not left You can't go both left and right but you have to choose one.

Let's look at the following example: Either X or Y We diagram this: If not X, then Y not X ==> Y not Y ==> X In this scenario we can have either X or Y or we can both. Now, let's look at your example: At the fork in the road, either turn left or right. This is actually an "either/or" statement with a "not both" statement. We can either turn left or right, but, obviously, we cannot turn both left and right. Thus, we diagram like so: Either/Or: not L ==> R not R ==> L Not Both: L ==> not R R ==> not L So, we can only ever have one option as opposed to two, since we write out both the "either/or" diagram and the "not both." The above is an example of a scenario where exactly one is chosen, rather than both or none. Let's look at one more example: The dress will either be red or green. If the dress is not green, then it is red. not G ==> R not R ==> G This is a clear "either/or" statement. The dress will either be red, or green, or it could be both with stripes. Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

What is the answer to this question??

Hi @Kyra the answer is E. Is the answer not showing up for you, or are you needing help with how to get there?

I am not sure why the answer is not B for question #24. If I have the question set up correctly, then you can use the transverse property to create a logic chain that would make B the correct answer.

@Mariana, Happy to help. The diagramming of the stimulus gives us manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >production costs fall more slowly production costs fall more slowly - >country can't lower prices as rapidly country can't lower prices as rapidly - >country gets squeezed out of the global market all of these statements link up together manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >production costs fall more slowly - >country can't lower prices as rapidly - >country gets squeezed out of the global market The contrapositive of this is that if the country doesn't get squeeze out of the global market, then the manufacturers of this country will have adopted new technologies as fast as other countries You asked about (B). (B) says, "If manufacturers in one county have been squeezed out of the global market, this shows that their foreign competitors have adopted new technologies more rapidly than they have." The problem with (B) is that this is the converse of the conclusion we arrived at once we linked up all of the conditional chains together. The conditional statements link up to form manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >country gets squeezed out of the global market (B) is mistakenly confusing (and switching around) the necessary condition for the sufficient condition and vice versa. This is incorrect logic. (E) says, "If a country's manufacturers can lower their prices as rapidly as their foreign competitors can, this shows that they adopt new technology at least as fast as their foreign competitors do." This is the contrapositive of part of the conditional chain we linked up. Original chain: manufacturers slower to adopt tech - >production costs fall more slowly - >country can't lower prices as rapidly - >country gets squeezed out of the global market The contrapositive of chain: country doesn't get squeezed out of the global market - >country can lower prices as rapidly - >production costs do not fall more slowly - >manufacturers adopt tech just as fast as other countries (E) is the contrapositive of the first two conditional statements of the chain. This is our correct answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!