- Thu May 13, 2021 5:13 pm
There are two different possibilities here. The first it describes is when a term falls under an umbrella idea presented in the stimulus. So for example, if the stimulus tells us that all animals love ice cream, we could draw the conclusion that dogs love ice cream. Why? Because dogs are animals, and they fall under that umbrella.
The second is saying that you want to watch for valid inferences. Even if a stimulus doesn't say something directly, we could still know it based on combining different facts given in the stimulus.
For example, consider the following facts: County fairs all have carnival rides. Alameda has a county fair next week.
We can make a deduction based on those facts, one that wasn't directly stated. The Alameda fair will have carnival rides. We can combine the facts above to get a new fact that wasn't directly stated.
Those are the two categories discussed in lesson 1. You want to watch for both of those sorts of examples before eliminating a must be true answer for being not supported by the stimulus.
Hope that helps!