Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Connect general rules to specific facts while preserving requirements, permissions and obligations.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
Select a principle that supports an argument or determine which application follows from a stated principle.
The assumption lessons distinguished a requirement from a guarantee. Principle questions use the same distinction in a general rule. Identify whether the question supplies the rule and asks for an application, or supplies an argument and asks for a rule that supports it.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Trigger | The condition or combination of conditions that activates a stated rule. |
| Permission | A rule allowing an action without necessarily requiring it. |
| Obligation | A requirement that an action be performed under stated conditions. |
| Exception | A specified case that limits an otherwise general rule. |
A principle is a general rule used to assess or guide particular cases. It may describe eligibility, permission, an obligation, a fair procedure or a standard of evidence. In a principle-application question, treat the rule as given and test the case against its conditions. In a principle-support question, find the general rule that connects the argument's stated facts to its conclusion. Neither task asks you to substitute your own preferred policy.
A principle can have more than one condition. If a project is recommended when it benefits residents and fits the available budget, both conditions must be established to use that sufficient route. Meeting one condition does not complete it. Yet failing one condition does not automatically establish rejection unless the policy also makes the route necessary or exhaustive. Read the direction instead of relying on the topic.
Rules also differ in force. May is permission, must is obligation, and should commonly expresses a recommendation or duty in the stated policy. A permission to publish does not require immediate publication. A duty to disclose a conflict does not prove the conflicted person's conclusion false. Preserve both the trigger and the precise consequence when matching a case.
Another way: picture
Think of a rule card with two boxes: trigger conditions and authorized conclusion. Put each fact in the trigger box only if it actually satisfies a listed condition. Read the conclusion box without adding a stronger consequence.
Another way: steps
Identify the rule's direction and force; list each condition; match facts to conditions; draw only the stated consequence; inspect exceptions and missing information.
An application item begins with a rule and asks which case or judgment fits it. Work from rule to facts. A support item begins with an argument and asks which principle would justify its move. Work from the facts and conclusion toward a connecting rule. The two tasks can share vocabulary while asking you to move in different directions.
For a support item, a principle that merely repeats a premise may leave the normative conclusion unsupported. If an argument says visitors will otherwise be misled and therefore a museum should disclose a repair, the connecting rule links misleading impressions to a disclosure duty. A rule about how repairs are performed may concern the same object but fail to support the requested duty.
If a fund pays only when damage has a documented cause, documentation is necessary. Without it, that payment rule excludes coverage. If a fund pays whenever documentation exists, documentation is sufficient, though other routes may also exist. The two sentences sound similar because they contain the same terms, but their implications differ.
Try a concrete countercase to a doubtful application. Under a sufficient rule, a group missing one condition might still enter through another route. Under a necessary rule, an admitted group cannot lack the required condition. This simple contrast prevents the common jump from failure to meet one sufficient route to a claim that no route is possible.
A rule requiring consent and removal of identifying details is not satisfied by consent alone. A rule allowing either of two documents does not require both. Keep the logical connection between conditions visible, especially when a long sentence inserts background information between them.
Exceptions modify the rule rather than supplying unrelated facts. If a discount applies to all members except those whose dues are overdue, membership alone does not settle the case. You must know whether the exception applies. Do not infer an exception simply because the case seems unusual; the passage must give a basis for it. Conversely, do not ignore an explicit exception because a candidate otherwise resembles the general pattern.
A rule about what is fair does not automatically predict what will happen. A rule about what is permitted does not establish what is wise. A rule about who is eligible does not establish who will be selected. These distinctions matter when an answer borrows the rule's conditions but changes its consequence.
Suppose equal applications should receive equal decisions. If one is approved and the other rejected, the principle is violated. It does not tell you whether both should be approved or both rejected without another standard of merit. The equality judgment is warranted while either particular remedy remains underdetermined. A correct application can therefore identify a conflict without selecting a complete policy response.
You may think a policy is unfair or incomplete. The question still asks what it implies as stated. Applying a hypothetical principle does not endorse it. Separate the conditional reasoning task from a broader evaluation of whether the institution ought to adopt the rule.
The same care applies to familiar real-world concepts. A conflict of interest can create a disclosure requirement under a supplied principle without proving dishonesty or false findings. A safety condition can limit permission without creating a complete legal code. Use only the rule the exercise gives. Importing professional or legal knowledge often adds assumptions the item deliberately does not provide.
A candidate may begin correctly and end with an unsupported addition. For example, disclosure may be required, but immediate dismissal need not follow. Read every clause. If the question asks which principle best supports an argument, verify that the principle covers the facts and reaches the exact conclusion with appropriate force.
A principle can be broader than the particular case and still support it. Broadness alone is not a defect. The concern is whether it asserts the relevant connection rather than merely sharing the topic. Compare a rule about preventing misleading impressions with a rule saying that all museums should be popular. Only the former supplies the missing connection in a disclosure argument. State that link before deciding.
When reviewing a decision, separate the published criteria from your opinion of the outcome. List the criteria, mark which facts establish them, and identify any unresolved condition. If the rule demands equal treatment of relevant equals, compare the relevant facts rather than superficial similarities.
The automatic exercises check whether supplied judgments fit supplied principles. They do not certify professional judgment or decide real disputes. A helpful error log records whether the mistake concerned direction, an omitted condition, an exception or the force of the conclusion. On the next case, inspect that feature before selecting an answer. This is also useful preparation for reading an unfamiliar policy: a reader who can distinguish a sufficient route from an exclusive route is less likely to treat silence as either blanket permission or blanket prohibition.
A sufficient condition is not automatically necessary; a necessary condition is not automatically sufficient. Permission, obligation, prediction and evaluation are different consequences.
Read the passage and question.
A repair fund covers damage only when it results from a documented storm. Lea's window damage has no documented storm cause.
Which judgment follows from the fund's stated rule?
Only when introduces a condition that coverage cannot lack.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: The fund does not cover Lea's damage under this rule. 2: Every storm-damaged window receives full payment. 3: Lea caused the damage deliberately. 4: The fund should change its policy. 5: No storms occurred anywhere.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
The fund does not cover Lea's damage under this rule.
A necessary condition for coverage is absent.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Only when supplies a requirement, not a sufficient guarantee or an amount. 3: The missing documentation says nothing about intent. 4: That value judgment is not entailed by the rule. 5: A lack of documented cause for this case is not a universal weather claim.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A club's policy recommends any project that both benefits local residents and can be completed with available funds. A proposed garden meets both conditions.
Which application is justified by the stated principle?
Match both the benefit and funding facts before using the recommendation rule.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: The policy recommends the proposed garden. 2: Every recommended project must be a garden. 3: A project with no funding must also be recommended. 4: The garden is certain to succeed in every respect. 5: The garden is the only project worth considering.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
The policy recommends the proposed garden.
Both sufficient conditions are explicitly satisfied.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: The policy concerns conditions, not a particular project type. 3: One required part of the stated sufficient combination is missing. 4: A recommendation is not a universal success guarantee. 5: No exclusivity follows from the principle.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A critic argues that a museum should disclose a restoration because visitors would otherwise mistake the repaired surface for the original.
Which principle most directly supports the reasoning?
The needed rule links likely misunderstanding to disclosure.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: A museum should disclose alterations that would otherwise mislead visitors about an object's original condition. 2: Every old object must be restored. 3: Visitors always dislike repairs. 4: Only popular museums should publish information. 5: Any disclosure makes every visitor an expert.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
A museum should disclose alterations that would otherwise mislead visitors about an object's original condition.
The principle connects the identified risk of misunderstanding to the disclosure recommendation.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: The argument concerns disclosure, not whether restoration is required. 3: A universal preference is neither stated nor needed. 4: Popularity has no role in the reasoning. 5: The argument needs less than this unsupported guarantee.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Check the difficult boundary.
A disclosure duty does not imply that all repairs are wrong or that visitors become experts.
This last check preserves the exact strength and scope of the answer rather than turning it into a broader claim.
Read the rule's force.
A room may be used for study whenever it is unreserved. Room C is unreserved.
The consequence is permission to study there.
Apply the stated consequence.
Room C may be used for study.
The supplied fact meets the sufficient condition.
Reject a stronger conclusion.
A reading room admits a group whenever it has both a reservation and an adult supervisor. Group W has a reservation but no supervisor. Which conclusion is justified solely by the stated admission rule?
A workshop rule states that any tool borrowed overnight must be recorded in the loan book. Mara borrowed a saw overnight. No exceptions to the rule apply. Which conclusion follows by applying the rule? (1) Every recorded loan is overnight. (2) Mara is forbidden to borrow the saw. (3) Every unrecorded tool has been borrowed overnight. (4) Loans returned the same day must never be recorded. (5) Mara's saw loan must be recorded. Match every stated condition and preserve whether the rule grants permission, imposes a duty or recommends an action. Complete the method with the number of the best answer.
Name the precise task.
Match every stated condition and preserve whether the rule grants permission, imposes a duty or recommends an action.
The question determines what would count as a successful answer.
Compare the candidates against the target.
Best answer: answer.
Preserve quantities, speaker attribution and the exact conclusion or passage claim.
Check the strongest rival.
Explain which required connection that rival lacks.
A defensible rejection exposes the misconception rather than memorizing an option number.
A panel says that two applications identical on all relevant published criteria should receive the same decision. Applications A and B are identical on those criteria, but only A is approved. Which judgment best applies the panel's principle? (1) A must be rejected rather than B approved. (2) B must have falsified information. (3) Published criteria never matter. (4) All applications must always be approved. (5) The different decisions conflict with the stated principle. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
A reading room admits a group whenever it has both a reservation and an adult supervisor. Group W has a reservation but no supervisor. Which conclusion is justified solely by the stated admission rule?
A panel says that two applications identical on all relevant published criteria should receive the same decision. Applications A and B are identical on those criteria, but only A is approved. Which judgment best applies the panel's principle?
A workshop rule states that any tool borrowed overnight must be recorded in the loan book. Mara borrowed a saw overnight. No exceptions to the rule apply. Which conclusion follows by applying the rule?
A committee's rule permits replacing a historic fixture only if repair is impossible. The hinge can be repaired. Which decision conforms to the rule?
A library excuses a late fee whenever the return delay was caused entirely by a documented closure. A borrower's delay meets both conditions. Which result follows?
An editor rejects a statistic because its denominator is unstated, although its numerator is accurate. Which principle most directly supports that decision?
A park permits collecting fallen branches but prohibits cutting living branches. Jo collects branches already lying on the ground. Which judgment follows from these rules?
A panel gives comparable applicants the same deadline, unless a documented interruption prevented one from accessing the form. One applicant experienced such an interruption. Which action best applies the policy?
A lab policy permits public release of data whenever all participants consent and identifying details are removed. Dataset P satisfies both conditions. Which application follows from the stated policy? (1) P must be released immediately. (2) Any dataset without consent is permanently forbidden. (3) P contains no useful information. (4) Every participant must like the study. (5) The policy permits public release of P. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
A rule allows publication of a photograph only with the subject's consent. The subject has not consented. Which judgment follows? (1) Publication is not allowed under this rule. (2) The subject must consent eventually. (3) Taking the photograph was necessarily forbidden. (4) Publication is allowed whenever the image is attractive. (5) Every consenting subject's photograph must be published. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Tomorrow, translate a principle into its trigger and consequence. Recall why a permission is not a duty and why failure of a sufficient condition does not prove prohibition. Next: match the same reasoning pattern in another setting.
16. Permission is not obligation, step 3
Nobody is required by this rule to study in C immediately.
Permission does not create an obligation or a deadline.