@KUROUSHFAIZRAFATIAN It's a tough concept, and won't come up that often! I encourage you to move on and come back when you run into problems with conditional logic in connection with LR questions. Don't worry about getting stuck here -- you'll have plenty of opportunities to come back and cement things.
An absolutely horrendous lesson. As many others have stated, this makes much more sense following the kick it up to the domain lesson from earlier and simply having:
/prohibited -> serve a medical purpose
These frameworks wildly complicated things, and as someone else stated, would likely be significantly more helpful if applied to actual questions instead of these hypotheticals.
@BenBeecham Yeah I have that issue a lot where I make things more complicated than it is and then confuse myself... This has to be one of those cases. The past couple lessons have been incredibly disorienting to the point where I wonder if these breakdowns are necessary?
Looks like it's time for me to call it a night! The more tools and frameworks I pick up, the more the "how-to" instructions seem to slip from my memory.
This just feels like an overexplanation of the negation lessons. Why not just take the rule and the exception as an exclusion conjunction and apply the flip/ negate strategy? Is there a reason this shouldn't be the most obvious solution? I got the same results as the video using this strategy... why do I need more options that are just gonna cloud my intuition?
187 comments
In what world does this take 3 minutes?
girl what
thank you for posting this lol, i felt lost and this cracked me UP
bro what the helly
@CaseyLiu NO MY EXACT REACTION
@CaseyLiu Glad I'm not alone
@Dsamuel5 LOL
Yeah, no. Learned the first framework and my brain said no to the other two 😂
There has got to be an easier way to understand all of this? I am getting lost
the past couple slides have confused me so much and now im losing grasp of evrything i learned so far! any advice????!
@KUROUSHFAIZRAFATIAN It's a tough concept, and won't come up that often! I encourage you to move on and come back when you run into problems with conditional logic in connection with LR questions. Don't worry about getting stuck here -- you'll have plenty of opportunities to come back and cement things.
Ah hell naw
me rn
me too
thank you for making me laugh because I was bout to crash out
An absolutely horrendous lesson. As many others have stated, this makes much more sense following the kick it up to the domain lesson from earlier and simply having:
/prohibited -> serve a medical purpose
These frameworks wildly complicated things, and as someone else stated, would likely be significantly more helpful if applied to actual questions instead of these hypotheticals.
You have failed. force is not with you.
Overstimulated
The more these things are explained, the more confused I get
i feel like this might be overcomplicating something intuitive? or maybe i'm really not understanding?
@jmcconnell1 I feel the exact same way. Maybe we our opinion will change when we get some difficult questions.
@Wallen Agree, I think I’ll understand more when I see this stuff in context of questions?
I am so cooked broo
Not a fan of the domain method
I can't tell if I'm not smart enough to understand what they're explaining or I'm smart enough and they're just overexplaining it.
@BenBeecham Yeah I have that issue a lot where I make things more complicated than it is and then confuse myself... This has to be one of those cases. The past couple lessons have been incredibly disorienting to the point where I wonder if these breakdowns are necessary?
@mibuch I am feeling the same way at the moment
@mibuch THIS!!!
a 3 min lesson turned into an hour real quick because of how confusing this was
yeah idk lol
Looks like it's time for me to call it a night! The more tools and frameworks I pick up, the more the "how-to" instructions seem to slip from my memory.
can't you just say
For Beresford residents:
Pet allowed -> Medical purpose
or
~Medical purpose -> ~pet allowed
I feel like all the approaches over complicate this issue if you can just translate using the original negate sufficient rules from earlier
Wildly convoluted, it would be helpful to show us this with real questions
This just feels like an overexplanation of the negation lessons. Why not just take the rule and the exception as an exclusion conjunction and apply the flip/ negate strategy? Is there a reason this shouldn't be the most obvious solution? I got the same results as the video using this strategy... why do I need more options that are just gonna cloud my intuition?
what
How could this section be given a length of 3 minutes in the study plan if the video in it is more than 9 minutes long?
My brain just don’t want to comprehend the 2nd one
I'll just learn the first...