It's because they're meant to be exhaustive! To really improve, you have to understand why the right answer is right, and why the wrong answers are wrong thoroughly to ensure you grasp the concept.
@meepmeep You'll get better with practice! I really wasn't a fan of RRE questions but practice helps. I went from gettin 0/5 to 3/5 (not the best, but better), practice, practice, practice! Goodluck!
I chose C because I didn't focus on the grammar "of the interviews shown" and instead focused on why the TV was unbiased (the opposite of the claimed conclusion) - which not enough information is given to prove that. I was focused on destroying the conclusion and not just weakening it.
To me, I looked at C as wrong because the conclusion in the prompt wouldn't be undermined. C wouldn't explain why twice as many non-supporters were interviewed, and actually C could be right and the conclusion could still be true, so it doesn't weaken it. Fervor of Interviewee ≠ Number of interviewees
#feedback Originally, I was frustrated with the amount of time JY put into alternating the ACs/Question types to show how the question could work given different scenarios. It just seemed too confusing and a waste of time. After reviewing this question, I now see why its important to view the questions in different ways. Understanding the unity in logical reasoning questions makes for better overall understanding. All of the question types are linked in terms of thought process in some way shape or form. It may seem confusing at first, but once it clicks--it clicks, and you likely will start relying less on identifying question types and simply just applying, well--logical reasoning!
Continuously refereeing to a different question type, which requires a different strategy, does makes this new type of questions much more confusing and difficult to resolve.
Yes I wish he didnt, I get that he does it to "help" but it kinda throws a wrench in my thought process. #feedback... maybe say it once or twice but not in a bunch of them.
In this question, I got confused by the previous lesson which mentioned that for causal logic weakening questions, we can find an alternative hypothesis in the answers to weaken the argument.
I found that it helped, in this instance, to forget about an alternative hypothesis (the answer just did not seem like one to me). Instead, it helped to just focus on weakening the support (that is, what supports the tv program being biased) on a more intuitive level.
I initially thought A, but in my blind review, I saw the appeal of D, and though still skeptical, chose D.
My thing with A though is that I assumed that because most ppl watched the program and were aware of the controversy b4 hand, they would've formed their own opinions, and wouldn't be swayed by the TV program... however, typing this out now, I see that these were a lot of assumptions being made lol, and that A has nothing to with the actual TV show itself... Thanks for coming to my TedTalk of my brain thought process I guess haha :)
I am having a hard time changing my thought process with answering weaken questions. I'm hoping with practice I can get better, but it seems like there's a long road ahead!
What I like to think when answering these types of questions is, "Whoa.. Whoa... Whoa.. there author, wait a second I hear you but, how do you know thats THE answer to the problem (conclusion). Sure it could be AN explanation, but is it THE explanation?" As obvious as it sounds I am just trying to be a critic a-hole to the author and be like could it be this or that.
Author: people are rude because they have overdue bills.
Me: Whoa whoa whoa... wait a second I get people are rude but how do you know theyre rude because of the bills? There could be a million reasons that people are rude. They dont like your face... Their spouses make them mad... etc...
@Super_Cookie my favorite way to eliminate answer options is if I can just say "who cares?" I can cross it off and move on.
I'll be honest, I saw "Most viewers" and moved on. Didnt even read the rest. Why read it. Its asking for us to weaken the conclusion about the station being biased due to the amount of interviews. How would viewers affect any of that? Maybe there's some way, but its not likely and I can come back if nothing else pops out as correct sooner.
I don't know if I recommend doing that, but just sharing how I approach a lot of these.
In the end I chose D but doesn't C seem like a potential explanation too? Maybe the news station aired more interviews with people against the new freeway because those people gave more emotional interviews, which made for better TV. So C does weaken the argument. However, D is right because it weakens the argument more.
The way I have explained it to myself is AC C requires a greater assumption 'leap' than AC D does.
AC C requires we assume more emotional = better TV; What if both groups (for and against the freeway) were very emotional, the people against were just a little bit more emotional? Technically they would still be 'more emotional' but if both groups are emotional, both interviews would have been emotional thus made for good TV.
AC D is just less of an assumption 'leap'. If, from a pool of possible interviewees (people who would be affected by the proposed freeway-according to the sim) there are OVER TWICE as many people against than are for the freeway, it makes sense that the against are 2x more represented.
I think I am in the boat now of overthinking the answers. I do really well on the harder difficulty questions for this type but now that I revisit the lessons that have more entry level ones, I struggle to pick the right answer for some reason. I think I am overthinking the question and answers. Suggestions for not thinking lol?
If this is happening on "lower difficulty" questions where you have more time, you could try more POE. Focus on eliminating wrong answers instead of trying to justify correct answers. I tend to do the latter when I am overthinking.
I'll do my best to explain. The argument is that the news station is biased since they showed twice as many interviews of people against the freeway than for it. So D weakens the argument that they're biased because if twice as many people are against the freeway, you can make the assumption that the news station isn't biased because if they're interviewing people where it's a 2:1 ratio of against/for the construction, it shows that they didn't cherry pick interviews and were in fact just interviewing people randomly and the ratio ended up being the same. I believe I chose E the first time around (3 months ago)
Could it be that AC C baits us to make an assumption about why the television program showed more nay-sayers?
Exmple of such assumption would be that TV program's motivation was purely commercial - they showed more emotional opponents of freeway to get more views rather than because they are biased (another unwarranted assumption about emotional interviews->more views)? Would it help to undermine "bias" conclusion?
@andriylevchenko97 I also picked C at first but I was between C and D so I learned an important lesson in choosing which one was stronger or relied LESS on my own assumptions. C makes you assume that they were trying to get views in order to be correct. D plainly says they were just interviewing the people who already existed. The most unbiased way to interview a group where twice as many people were against something than for WILL result in more negative (emotional or not) interviews than favorable ones. We have to remember the spectrum of support. Best of luck to you love.
So could we think of the weakening answers this way. Essentially the conclusion of the stimulus is a hypothesis that could be true. But the answer choice is another hypothesis or (conclusion) that could be true. BUT because when know the answer choice is true, it makes the support stronger for the answer choice hence weakening the conclusion in the stimulus?
This took a while for me too, I think because I kept 'reversing' the logic which put my mind into a loop. But to break it down... Premise: Of the interviews shown, those conducted with people against the new freeway outnumbered those conducted with people for it 2:1.
Conclusion: The television program is therefore biased against the proposed freeway.
A. Nothing in the stimulus indicates that the viewers (NOT interviewees) being aware of the freeway controversy = affects => how biased the TV program is against the proposed freeway. Cross this out
B. Again, nothing in the stimulus indicates that viewers’ expectation of bias has a relationship with the bias of a TV program. OUT
C. Okay, we’re getting closer, but if this was true, this would support the argument, not weaken it. We can keep this in reserve and see if there’s another answer that is better.
D. Better than C, so we can strike it out. The fact that there were 2x as many people before the program aired indicates that the ratio of those against the freeway versus those for was not because the TV program had a bias/selectively chose their interviewees. This greatly weakens the argument.
E. If true, would support the argument. If the TV has a fiscal interest that would be harmed by the freeway construction, they would naturally be biased against it, which supports the argument.
@oanhli34 A small criticism of your C explanation as my own exercise in breaking down logic.
I think you're including a bias in your answer that comes with assumptions. I realized I thought C was attractive because I subconsciously concluded that a news program covering something controversial wants to play into the emotions of the controversy. And thus, C was attractive to me because it plays into a bias that is not stated in the stimulus. It is not good on any grounds to me in that sense.
What the stimulus and conclusion are getting at is /bias/. C has nothing to do with bias because what would people being emotional have to conclude with being biased? Yeah the side that is worried about being affected by the freeway would probably be emotional, but that isn't inherently biased is it?
91 comments
Anyone else here taking the November test and feeling so behind?
First time for everything! Taking it in October, don't be discouraged:)) You can do it.
me! trying my best to catch up but worrying ill have to move my test to january if i don't feel ready:(
Me!! I thought I was doing decent but now I'm so confused eek!
yepp, mee
Same. I'm taking it next month and I feel like I'll have to take it again in January...
Literally me, I moved.
same!! but I'm thinking of taking it anyway and if need be retaking in January
Me too! We've got this!
I am glad we are in this together #teamspirit
Yes!! I feel the same, if we need it so be it.
"hopefully you got this right" no JY, I didn't...
sometimes the explanations are soo exhausting
It's because they're meant to be exhaustive! To really improve, you have to understand why the right answer is right, and why the wrong answers are wrong thoroughly to ensure you grasp the concept.
im terrible at these
@meepmeep You'll get better with practice! I really wasn't a fan of RRE questions but practice helps. I went from gettin 0/5 to 3/5 (not the best, but better), practice, practice, practice! Goodluck!
No way this is 2/5 difficulty . (i got it correct but still)
These easier weaken questions REALLY make me overthink the AC's
I chose C because I didn't focus on the grammar "of the interviews shown" and instead focused on why the TV was unbiased (the opposite of the claimed conclusion) - which not enough information is given to prove that. I was focused on destroying the conclusion and not just weakening it.
To me, I looked at C as wrong because the conclusion in the prompt wouldn't be undermined. C wouldn't explain why twice as many non-supporters were interviewed, and actually C could be right and the conclusion could still be true, so it doesn't weaken it. Fervor of Interviewee ≠ Number of interviewees
#feedback Originally, I was frustrated with the amount of time JY put into alternating the ACs/Question types to show how the question could work given different scenarios. It just seemed too confusing and a waste of time. After reviewing this question, I now see why its important to view the questions in different ways. Understanding the unity in logical reasoning questions makes for better overall understanding. All of the question types are linked in terms of thought process in some way shape or form. It may seem confusing at first, but once it clicks--it clicks, and you likely will start relying less on identifying question types and simply just applying, well--logical reasoning!
Continuously refereeing to a different question type, which requires a different strategy, does makes this new type of questions much more confusing and difficult to resolve.
It's even worse when taking the test. You can't get into a rhythm.
I'm glad I'm not the only one struggling when he brings up how you would solve it if it were RRE.
Yes I wish he didnt, I get that he does it to "help" but it kinda throws a wrench in my thought process. #feedback... maybe say it once or twice but not in a bunch of them.
In this question, I got confused by the previous lesson which mentioned that for causal logic weakening questions, we can find an alternative hypothesis in the answers to weaken the argument.
I found that it helped, in this instance, to forget about an alternative hypothesis (the answer just did not seem like one to me). Instead, it helped to just focus on weakening the support (that is, what supports the tv program being biased) on a more intuitive level.
No bc I started zoning out here :) like...
when I picked the right answer, I'm not even kidding, I clapped my hand so loud it hurt my ears.
I initially thought A, but in my blind review, I saw the appeal of D, and though still skeptical, chose D.
My thing with A though is that I assumed that because most ppl watched the program and were aware of the controversy b4 hand, they would've formed their own opinions, and wouldn't be swayed by the TV program... however, typing this out now, I see that these were a lot of assumptions being made lol, and that A has nothing to with the actual TV show itself... Thanks for coming to my TedTalk of my brain thought process I guess haha :)
I asked myslef, " What if they interviewed too many people against it?"
This anticipation allowed me to find correct answer (D).
I am having a hard time changing my thought process with answering weaken questions. I'm hoping with practice I can get better, but it seems like there's a long road ahead!
What I like to think when answering these types of questions is, "Whoa.. Whoa... Whoa.. there author, wait a second I hear you but, how do you know thats THE answer to the problem (conclusion). Sure it could be AN explanation, but is it THE explanation?" As obvious as it sounds I am just trying to be a critic a-hole to the author and be like could it be this or that.
Author: people are rude because they have overdue bills.
Me: Whoa whoa whoa... wait a second I get people are rude but how do you know theyre rude because of the bills? There could be a million reasons that people are rude. They dont like your face... Their spouses make them mad... etc...
Hope that helps.
agreed!!
I'm so dumb and picked B. I should make sure that the answer is specific to the argument and not pick one that makes a broad statement
@Super_Cookie Same here!
@Super_Cookie my favorite way to eliminate answer options is if I can just say "who cares?" I can cross it off and move on.
I'll be honest, I saw "Most viewers" and moved on. Didnt even read the rest. Why read it. Its asking for us to weaken the conclusion about the station being biased due to the amount of interviews. How would viewers affect any of that? Maybe there's some way, but its not likely and I can come back if nothing else pops out as correct sooner.
I don't know if I recommend doing that, but just sharing how I approach a lot of these.
In the end I chose D but doesn't C seem like a potential explanation too? Maybe the news station aired more interviews with people against the new freeway because those people gave more emotional interviews, which made for better TV. So C does weaken the argument. However, D is right because it weakens the argument more.
@SimonNavarrete I thought the same exact thing!
The way I have explained it to myself is AC C requires a greater assumption 'leap' than AC D does.
AC C requires we assume more emotional = better TV; What if both groups (for and against the freeway) were very emotional, the people against were just a little bit more emotional? Technically they would still be 'more emotional' but if both groups are emotional, both interviews would have been emotional thus made for good TV.
AC D is just less of an assumption 'leap'. If, from a pool of possible interviewees (people who would be affected by the proposed freeway-according to the sim) there are OVER TWICE as many people against than are for the freeway, it makes sense that the against are 2x more represented.
@SimonNavarrete Answer choice C infers that the TV is in fact biased therefore, making the conclusion stronger not weaker.
I think I am in the boat now of overthinking the answers. I do really well on the harder difficulty questions for this type but now that I revisit the lessons that have more entry level ones, I struggle to pick the right answer for some reason. I think I am overthinking the question and answers. Suggestions for not thinking lol?
If this is happening on "lower difficulty" questions where you have more time, you could try more POE. Focus on eliminating wrong answers instead of trying to justify correct answers. I tend to do the latter when I am overthinking.
i need to go with my gut more. my first choice was D then changed to C ugh
I fell for E because I thought that it was the businesses who were biased and not the news station but I guess it was an unreasonable assumption
@EthanSegerman same here.
@EthanSegerman Same here, I need to read more lol
What?!!? How is D the right answer???
I'll do my best to explain. The argument is that the news station is biased since they showed twice as many interviews of people against the freeway than for it. So D weakens the argument that they're biased because if twice as many people are against the freeway, you can make the assumption that the news station isn't biased because if they're interviewing people where it's a 2:1 ratio of against/for the construction, it shows that they didn't cherry pick interviews and were in fact just interviewing people randomly and the ratio ended up being the same. I believe I chose E the first time around (3 months ago)
Could it be that AC C baits us to make an assumption about why the television program showed more nay-sayers?
Exmple of such assumption would be that TV program's motivation was purely commercial - they showed more emotional opponents of freeway to get more views rather than because they are biased (another unwarranted assumption about emotional interviews->more views)? Would it help to undermine "bias" conclusion?
@andriylevchenko97 I also picked C at first but I was between C and D so I learned an important lesson in choosing which one was stronger or relied LESS on my own assumptions. C makes you assume that they were trying to get views in order to be correct. D plainly says they were just interviewing the people who already existed. The most unbiased way to interview a group where twice as many people were against something than for WILL result in more negative (emotional or not) interviews than favorable ones. We have to remember the spectrum of support. Best of luck to you love.
I got the answer in BR. It makes sense it just didn't the first time through, I crossed it out.
So could we think of the weakening answers this way. Essentially the conclusion of the stimulus is a hypothesis that could be true. But the answer choice is another hypothesis or (conclusion) that could be true. BUT because when know the answer choice is true, it makes the support stronger for the answer choice hence weakening the conclusion in the stimulus?
This took a while for me too, I think because I kept 'reversing' the logic which put my mind into a loop. But to break it down... Premise: Of the interviews shown, those conducted with people against the new freeway outnumbered those conducted with people for it 2:1.
Conclusion: The television program is therefore biased against the proposed freeway.
A. Nothing in the stimulus indicates that the viewers (NOT interviewees) being aware of the freeway controversy = affects => how biased the TV program is against the proposed freeway. Cross this out
B. Again, nothing in the stimulus indicates that viewers’ expectation of bias has a relationship with the bias of a TV program. OUT
C. Okay, we’re getting closer, but if this was true, this would support the argument, not weaken it. We can keep this in reserve and see if there’s another answer that is better.
D. Better than C, so we can strike it out. The fact that there were 2x as many people before the program aired indicates that the ratio of those against the freeway versus those for was not because the TV program had a bias/selectively chose their interviewees. This greatly weakens the argument.
E. If true, would support the argument. If the TV has a fiscal interest that would be harmed by the freeway construction, they would naturally be biased against it, which supports the argument.
@oanhli34 A small criticism of your C explanation as my own exercise in breaking down logic.
I think you're including a bias in your answer that comes with assumptions. I realized I thought C was attractive because I subconsciously concluded that a news program covering something controversial wants to play into the emotions of the controversy. And thus, C was attractive to me because it plays into a bias that is not stated in the stimulus. It is not good on any grounds to me in that sense.
What the stimulus and conclusion are getting at is /bias/. C has nothing to do with bias because what would people being emotional have to conclude with being biased? Yeah the side that is worried about being affected by the freeway would probably be emotional, but that isn't inherently biased is it?