I was a bit confused about how we make the jump to the implicaiton that rigrous curcciulm does't address development neeeds. I think one way to think about is the word "Only" in
Rigrous curriculum --> short term gains
If the only good thing a curriculum does is produce short-term gains, then we know for an absolute fact what it is not doing. It is definitively not addressing special developmental needs. The word "only" locks the door and prevents it from doing anything else.
By limiting its benefits to just "short-term gains," the author implies that it fails the necessary condition.
Correct me anyone if you think this may be the wrong logic?
i feel like inference questions(or maybe just this specific one) is more similar to a main conclusion question. The question is asking what can be inferred from the authors statements, just like a MC question; "whats the main point of the authors statement." I mean we are literally noting the main conclusion for our answer to this question. Idk if it will be like this for other questions so maybe I shouldn't use this methodology in the future but it seems to me that answer choice D is just a summary of the parents main point
unpopular opinion but I don't think the video "lessons" work for me unfortunately. I think I learn from trial and error not just listening them go through the answers one by one. I get distracted very easily. I don't like how the video lessons at least do not give us an opportunity to try the questions on our own first and gain an understanding that way.
@VanessaPonce They have a feature next to the comment button that shows you the question. While it doesn't allow you to highlight and answer it interactively, you can still go through the question, and there are analytics to explain it as well .
@ThePainter why would anyone say such evil thing? I did not get this wrong but I have gotten multiple 5 star questions right but sometimes 1 star question tripped me up. This is NOT an indication that you are a failure.
I feel just thinking about the question logically is easier than trying to put the stimulus into Lawgic. I still enjoy the explanation of each answer to see why the wrong answers are wrong!
@VanceKatzfey I think you are supposed to use your own reasoning ability anyway. The Lawgic is just a framework when youre stuck or can't map correctly.
A question about the stimulus, the first sentence is a conclusion, the following are the premises that support it. The last sentence seems to restate the conclusion initially spelled out with some finer details such as putting in the modifier of economically, is there any way to point to which sentence is the true conclusion?
I think the last sentence is a minor conclusion and the first is a major conclusion, so you're right that they are both conclusions of some sort. You know which is the "true", or major conclusion by asking yourself "so what?". In this case, using students as pawns is unfair and works against us. So what? So pushing students into rigorous study does more harm than good. It's a good rule of thumb here that the more specific a sentence is, the more likely its a premise or explanation that builds to a larger conclusion. Hopefully this helps!
I feel like I keep getting the must be true question wrong because for some of the Q's, they all seem logical. Any tips on how to limit this thought and reasoning while approaching MBT questions?
For this one i got into the mind of the speaker- A, C, and E are all the opposite of what the parent is trying to argue. Those statements are true of the "antagonist" of the parent's issue (the education system). Even then, the answers are all too strong to even write them off as actual beliefs of the parent's perceived antagonist (it could just be a dramatic take of the education system by her own POV). We don't know the actual state of competitiveness in this World of the Parent. B- this could or could not be true. We don't know if the developmental issues are being addressed in some schools or not. Narrowing down into D- we know for sure that the Parent says the Narrow issue of "rigorous curricula" is not meeting developmental needs.
It helps to remember that you are only supposed to answer based on all the info they give you in the stimulus. You should immediately suss out answers that try to explain things and give you info that is new.
#feedback place the entire stim + ACs into the text explanation... when pausing the video, the entire screen goes white, so it's hard to analyze the stimulus or the answers when we can't see them (and by this i mean together at the beginning of the text and not spread out into the text (which personally that makes it hard to follow))
I tried to reproduce the issue, but unfortunately, I was not able to. I am not encountering the white screen issue when I am pausing the video. I am using Chrome on my Windows.
However, I would like to get to the bottom of this so that it is working well on your end too. Please try the following:
1. Clear your browser’s cache with these steps: https://7sage.com/clear-cache/
2. Please try changing your video player to a more compatible one. Here’s how:
● Go to Account settings
● Under Profile Settings
● Tap on the drop-down menu under Video Player
● Select “Basic – Most compatible player with least features”
● Tap “Save Changes” as shown below:
3. Try using a different browser. We find that the Chrome browser works best with our course, but Firefox and Safari work well too.
If you are still having trouble after trying the above-mentioned steps, please let me know what device you are using (Windows or Mac) and what browser you are using so that I can further investigate the issue.
Please also let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. I am happy to help!
sorry for the late reply! didn't realize i got a response 😅 didn't clear the cache but i did change the settings for the video player. so far, it looks like that worked but if not, i'll try following the other steps and email if i'm still running into issue. thanks a lot for your help!
I really think I would have gotten this correct, but only because of the subject. It seemed clear to me that she is speaking about curricula rather than anything to do with the nation or high schoolers. Is this a bad approach?
bro your a menace lol. But seriously can you imagine? I do believe in some countries without naming them, their kids actually can do this which is crazy
Yeah, I believe the majority of MBT questions (especially the harder ones) are heavy with conditionals, similar to the questions we previously saw. (Just wait till you get to Method of Reasoning or Parallel Reasoning). I think this lesson is to prep us for the idea that MBT questions can have gaps in logic and lend themselves to assumptions. Not all MBT types are air tight. This one had a lot of gaps - on purpose. It's a glimpse into the world of Necessary Assumptions.
#help It says curricula for younger students must address development needs.... why is answer choice C wrong? if it says our country can be competitive only if the develop needs of our students are met???
ONLY IF is a very powerful statement. The stimuli is arguing that this curricula for primary students is unfair/dumb/not worth. It is not arguing for what would make the country more competitive. Also, if it did suggest that, it definitely isn't saying the ONLY way to make the country more competitive is through curricula, it may just be one way.
In the stimulus, the first sentence (the conclusion) talks about the nation being competitive, but doesn't say anything about the type of competitiveness that is. Only the last sentence adds the modifier of economic competitiveness. But in the explanations, the economic competitiveness is inserted into the first sentence's meaning. I am confused how the explanation is saying that the first sentence is expressing that pushing rigorous curricula to make the nation more economically competitive is a bad thing when it does not say anything about ECONOMIC competitiveness, just competitiveness as a whole. To me, I would interpret that as the author expressing any type of competitiveness in the first sentence, but then modifies it to be a completely different type of competitiveness that was originally the main intent. I see the argument as not really flowing very well because the author is not maintaining the same meaning throughout. Am I incorrect in thinking this or just overthinking it? #help #feedback
58 comments
I was a bit confused about how we make the jump to the implicaiton that rigrous curcciulm does't address development neeeds. I think one way to think about is the word "Only" in
If the only good thing a curriculum does is produce short-term gains, then we know for an absolute fact what it is not doing. It is definitively not addressing special developmental needs. The word "only" locks the door and prevents it from doing anything else.
By limiting its benefits to just "short-term gains," the author implies that it fails the necessary condition.
Correct me anyone if you think this may be the wrong logic?
i feel like inference questions(or maybe just this specific one) is more similar to a main conclusion question. The question is asking what can be inferred from the authors statements, just like a MC question; "whats the main point of the authors statement." I mean we are literally noting the main conclusion for our answer to this question. Idk if it will be like this for other questions so maybe I shouldn't use this methodology in the future but it seems to me that answer choice D is just a summary of the parents main point
unpopular opinion but I don't think the video "lessons" work for me unfortunately. I think I learn from trial and error not just listening them go through the answers one by one. I get distracted very easily. I don't like how the video lessons at least do not give us an opportunity to try the questions on our own first and gain an understanding that way.
@VanessaPonce They have a feature next to the comment button that shows you the question. While it doesn't allow you to highlight and answer it interactively, you can still go through the question, and there are analytics to explain it as well .
If I understand the question at first and get it right, is it okay to move on or should I still be watching the explanation videos?
@bkayc generally, if i'm super confident on why it's right, i don't watch the vid. but if i'm unsure AT ALL, i watch it
OMG I HATE HOW YOU CANT JUST GIVE ME THE QUESTION FIRST. LIKE LET ME LOOK ST THE DAMN THING BEFORE LEADING ME THRU THE EXPLANATION
[This comment was deleted.]
@ThePainter why would anyone say such evil thing? I did not get this wrong but I have gotten multiple 5 star questions right but sometimes 1 star question tripped me up. This is NOT an indication that you are a failure.
So does properly inferred means must be true?
@Hanifa Yes
My god, after getting the ast three questions wrong, it feels good knowing i got this question right.
@AnthonyRojas last three were all 5 stars this is like 2....
The fact that they called it primary school and secondary school did NOT help
I feel just thinking about the question logically is easier than trying to put the stimulus into Lawgic. I still enjoy the explanation of each answer to see why the wrong answers are wrong!
@VanceKatzfey This is so true! Lawgic is time consuming and leads to over analysis
@VanceKatzfey seriously this! sometimes it feels so overcomplicated
@VanceKatzfey I think you are supposed to use your own reasoning ability anyway. The Lawgic is just a framework when youre stuck or can't map correctly.
@VanceKatzfey I think you just need to skim the answer choices a bit to see if parsing the correct answer requires a logic chain or not.
I DEFINITELY would have fallen for (C)
@RyanAlexander I did fall for C for not analyzing the stimulus.
Am I the only one who gets confused with the "handwriting"? I feel like it has got worse as the weeks go on.
Having come back to this, this feels more like a sufficient assumption question no?
@TheBigFatPanda I agree. A lot of these MSS questions kinda do, but I honestly thought this one was an SA lol
so here is how I drew out the logic for this.
Young children curriculum (YCC)--> developmentally supportive
YCC--> DevS
we dont know what is the proper young children's curriculum but we can infer from the next sentance that it is NOT Rigoros curriculum. (/RC) \.
I substitute that in as we now how more specifics
/RC--> DevS
and that most closely aligns with answer choice
Is drawing out lawgic reserved for just conditional and causal logic?
A question about the stimulus, the first sentence is a conclusion, the following are the premises that support it. The last sentence seems to restate the conclusion initially spelled out with some finer details such as putting in the modifier of economically, is there any way to point to which sentence is the true conclusion?
I think the last sentence is a minor conclusion and the first is a major conclusion, so you're right that they are both conclusions of some sort. You know which is the "true", or major conclusion by asking yourself "so what?". In this case, using students as pawns is unfair and works against us. So what? So pushing students into rigorous study does more harm than good. It's a good rule of thumb here that the more specific a sentence is, the more likely its a premise or explanation that builds to a larger conclusion. Hopefully this helps!
The three first choices you mentioned, would you define those as assumptions to the argument that we cannot make? that is how i classified them
I agree, those options assume too much.
I feel like I keep getting the must be true question wrong because for some of the Q's, they all seem logical. Any tips on how to limit this thought and reasoning while approaching MBT questions?
For this one i got into the mind of the speaker- A, C, and E are all the opposite of what the parent is trying to argue. Those statements are true of the "antagonist" of the parent's issue (the education system). Even then, the answers are all too strong to even write them off as actual beliefs of the parent's perceived antagonist (it could just be a dramatic take of the education system by her own POV). We don't know the actual state of competitiveness in this World of the Parent. B- this could or could not be true. We don't know if the developmental issues are being addressed in some schools or not. Narrowing down into D- we know for sure that the Parent says the Narrow issue of "rigorous curricula" is not meeting developmental needs.
It helps to remember that you are only supposed to answer based on all the info they give you in the stimulus. You should immediately suss out answers that try to explain things and give you info that is new.
im cooked omg
second this.
me af
same ugh!!!
real
@sidneysinger580 so real
#feedback place the entire stim + ACs into the text explanation... when pausing the video, the entire screen goes white, so it's hard to analyze the stimulus or the answers when we can't see them (and by this i mean together at the beginning of the text and not spread out into the text (which personally that makes it hard to follow))
Hi there,
I’m so sorry for the trouble.
I tried to reproduce the issue, but unfortunately, I was not able to. I am not encountering the white screen issue when I am pausing the video. I am using Chrome on my Windows.
However, I would like to get to the bottom of this so that it is working well on your end too. Please try the following:
1. Clear your browser’s cache with these steps: https://7sage.com/clear-cache/
2. Please try changing your video player to a more compatible one. Here’s how:
● Go to Account settings
● Under Profile Settings
● Tap on the drop-down menu under Video Player
● Select “Basic – Most compatible player with least features”
● Tap “Save Changes” as shown below:
3. Try using a different browser. We find that the Chrome browser works best with our course, but Firefox and Safari work well too.
If you are still having trouble after trying the above-mentioned steps, please let me know what device you are using (Windows or Mac) and what browser you are using so that I can further investigate the issue.
Please also let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. I am happy to help!
Hi there,
I just want to follow up on this matter. Are you still encountering the issue after following the recommended troubleshooting steps?
Please let me know if you are still having trouble or if you have other questions, I am here to assist you.
sorry for the late reply! didn't realize i got a response 😅 didn't clear the cache but i did change the settings for the video player. so far, it looks like that worked but if not, i'll try following the other steps and email if i'm still running into issue. thanks a lot for your help!
I really think I would have gotten this correct, but only because of the subject. It seemed clear to me that she is speaking about curricula rather than anything to do with the nation or high schoolers. Is this a bad approach?
I'm laughing at the 6 year olds learning calculus hahah
bro your a menace lol. But seriously can you imagine? I do believe in some countries without naming them, their kids actually can do this which is crazy
you're. Sorry
im so bad at conditionals, I wonder why is this lesson before the conditional one and will alot of MBT questions have conditional?
Yeah, I believe the majority of MBT questions (especially the harder ones) are heavy with conditionals, similar to the questions we previously saw. (Just wait till you get to Method of Reasoning or Parallel Reasoning). I think this lesson is to prep us for the idea that MBT questions can have gaps in logic and lend themselves to assumptions. Not all MBT types are air tight. This one had a lot of gaps - on purpose. It's a glimpse into the world of Necessary Assumptions.
#help It says curricula for younger students must address development needs.... why is answer choice C wrong? if it says our country can be competitive only if the develop needs of our students are met???
ONLY IF is a very powerful statement. The stimuli is arguing that this curricula for primary students is unfair/dumb/not worth. It is not arguing for what would make the country more competitive. Also, if it did suggest that, it definitely isn't saying the ONLY way to make the country more competitive is through curricula, it may just be one way.
In the stimulus, the first sentence (the conclusion) talks about the nation being competitive, but doesn't say anything about the type of competitiveness that is. Only the last sentence adds the modifier of economic competitiveness. But in the explanations, the economic competitiveness is inserted into the first sentence's meaning. I am confused how the explanation is saying that the first sentence is expressing that pushing rigorous curricula to make the nation more economically competitive is a bad thing when it does not say anything about ECONOMIC competitiveness, just competitiveness as a whole. To me, I would interpret that as the author expressing any type of competitiveness in the first sentence, but then modifies it to be a completely different type of competitiveness that was originally the main intent. I see the argument as not really flowing very well because the author is not maintaining the same meaning throughout. Am I incorrect in thinking this or just overthinking it? #help #feedback