i covered the previous lesson about two hours ago, then did this one myself, i completely forgot about the strategy and dismissed the a acid answer choice as irrelevant..
in the last video i noted to attend to the links between the premises and the conclusion. there was no link between acetyl a and the conclusion making B the best answer. he also said before these types of questions have causal claims within the premises and conclusion, so we have to figure out what is link them together instead of what is making a causal claim in the conclusion valid.
I think I found a way to think about these strengthen questions, I could be wrong, feel free to let me know or add anything. If you're presented with, for example:
Context
Premise 1
Premise 2
Conclusion
You have your context, which means the topic of discussion is being introduced. You have premise 1, which gives a solution, you have premise 2 which also gives a reason. You then have your conclusion based off the two premises. However, premise 2 gave greater detail to aid the conclusion, but premise 1 only said something important, but didn't explain it, yet it somehow aids the conclusion (e.g., X Acid can help slow down deterioration of brain cells in Alzheimer's, something like that). I think here, at this point, your strengthen answer choice should be the missing part of the premise for premise 1. What is an explanation that strengthens premise 1 (in all its vagueness) and thus strengthens the following conclusion? I hope this was clear lol.
@AliaAli For other questions, it could be that even premise 2 is too vague, and you need to find its missing link to help support what premise 2 is trying to say and if that would also help strengthen the conclusion.
BR has been so useful in my learning process. Having a second chance to work through without worrying about time really helps to see things clearly and understand what the correct answer is.
So basically to strengthen this argument it was just to look for the line that hadn't played any role in supporting the conclusion? And then find the supporting evidence as the answer?
How do I know that the sentence about "the deterioration can be slowed..." isn't just thrown out there as extra fluff. I got this question right because of the video lesson before this question, so it was in my head, but in a real test that sentence would just seem superfluous to me. Is it just based out of process of elimination and that was just the best answer out there?
Wouldn't it mean that if the A acid was present to negatively correlate w microllgia, the patient would be more susceptible to Alzheimer's disease or the low cognitive function symptoms, because it is the mirollgia that helps remove the protein deposits, and without those, the A acid would lower the patient, who would more likely struggle. I know there are a lot of statements made here and assumptions, but could someone help me understand if these assumptions would or wouldn't matter for this question? I think if we made the assumptions that would not weaken the argument per se, but it would help us say that the A acid wouldn't be a good thing for the patient, which has me confused.
@CalebMichale You have to realize that the more microglia, the more they will end up wrongfully attacking the healthy brain cells as well. Which would attribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s. So acetylsalicylic acid ends up being very helpful.
@BriannaZuniga I think this one is hard because its a lot of words about a complex subject. I had to reread and force myself to simplify it. Take each fact and put them together line by line, skipping the gobblygook, and it makes a lot more sense
here's how I figured it out as someone who was confused: write out the conclusion and the premises that you see. in this case the conclusion was that microglia activity deteriorates cognitive facilities )I kicked Alzheimer's up into the domain) then the two premises is that it can be slowed by the acid and that the build up from protein causes the microglia to attack therefore impairing brain function. which of these two don't connect back to the premise/ isn't strong enough (yet) to go back to the premise? the acid premise and then I just looked in the answers for anything to strengthen that !
This really confused me. I immediately was able to find the conclusion, and I assumed the best support, would best support the conclusion? Can someone help explain?
@aswarre3 I got it wrong initially but right on BR. The second time I focused on reading carefully and noticed that the link between anti-inflammatory drugs (a-acid) and immune cells was not clear. That led me to AC B, which explicitly states the relationship between a-acid and immune cells. Broadly speaking, I guess what could work best for this question is noticing that there's an assumption being made (a-acid impacts immune cells) and see if any of the AC's address this assumption. Otherwise, I guess PoE is the best method.
@r.wang1 Thats a good way to view the problem! I think my brain was just stuck on supporting the conclusion. Rather than finding what premise is weak, and what AC supports it.
How do people see that this is strictly a causal stim? I didn't approach this question as needing to find the premise that doesn't connect to the conclusion. I got the answer correct but because I just saw all the other options as wrong (POE). I guess with the other strengthen and weaken stims not all the premises needed to connect to the conclusion and be supported. So I don't know how to recognize this stimulus shift and strategy shift on a timed PT or Drill for example. If anyone has any tips that would be great!
287 comments
My dumb ahh tried to gas A up like it was the prize of the year when whole time I was set on B bro......
Fuck this fucking question man
this fucking shit
i covered the previous lesson about two hours ago, then did this one myself, i completely forgot about the strategy and dismissed the a acid answer choice as irrelevant..
Didn't feel confident with any of the answers but chose B because it was the least bad sounding one heheh
narrowed my choices down to b and c and clicked c instead, these science-heavy questions always get me...
literally hovered over b but i still picked the wrong ones.
in the last video i noted to attend to the links between the premises and the conclusion. there was no link between acetyl a and the conclusion making B the best answer. he also said before these types of questions have causal claims within the premises and conclusion, so we have to figure out what is link them together instead of what is making a causal claim in the conclusion valid.
I think I found a way to think about these strengthen questions, I could be wrong, feel free to let me know or add anything. If you're presented with, for example:
Context
Premise 1
Premise 2
Conclusion
You have your context, which means the topic of discussion is being introduced. You have premise 1, which gives a solution, you have premise 2 which also gives a reason. You then have your conclusion based off the two premises. However, premise 2 gave greater detail to aid the conclusion, but premise 1 only said something important, but didn't explain it, yet it somehow aids the conclusion (e.g., X Acid can help slow down deterioration of brain cells in Alzheimer's, something like that). I think here, at this point, your strengthen answer choice should be the missing part of the premise for premise 1. What is an explanation that strengthens premise 1 (in all its vagueness) and thus strengthens the following conclusion? I hope this was clear lol.
@AliaAli For other questions, it could be that even premise 2 is too vague, and you need to find its missing link to help support what premise 2 is trying to say and if that would also help strengthen the conclusion.
BR has been so useful in my learning process. Having a second chance to work through without worrying about time really helps to see things clearly and understand what the correct answer is.
Very difficult. Only got it because i known a bit about alzheimers lol.
So basically to strengthen this argument it was just to look for the line that hadn't played any role in supporting the conclusion? And then find the supporting evidence as the answer?
100% first try!
How do I know that the sentence about "the deterioration can be slowed..." isn't just thrown out there as extra fluff. I got this question right because of the video lesson before this question, so it was in my head, but in a real test that sentence would just seem superfluous to me. Is it just based out of process of elimination and that was just the best answer out there?
Wouldn't it mean that if the A acid was present to negatively correlate w microllgia, the patient would be more susceptible to Alzheimer's disease or the low cognitive function symptoms, because it is the mirollgia that helps remove the protein deposits, and without those, the A acid would lower the patient, who would more likely struggle. I know there are a lot of statements made here and assumptions, but could someone help me understand if these assumptions would or wouldn't matter for this question? I think if we made the assumptions that would not weaken the argument per se, but it would help us say that the A acid wouldn't be a good thing for the patient, which has me confused.
@CalebMichale You have to realize that the more microglia, the more they will end up wrongfully attacking the healthy brain cells as well. Which would attribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s. So acetylsalicylic acid ends up being very helpful.
question-- if there is a floating premise in one of these strengthen questions, will the answer always be one that creates a causal mechanism?
Struggling with the concept of diagramming causal chains. Especially under time. I feel like this would just be a questions worthy of skipping...
So, is The argument the entire passage? I was thinking that the conclusion was the argument, but i guess not...
@BriannaZuniga I think this one is hard because its a lot of words about a complex subject. I had to reread and force myself to simplify it. Take each fact and put them together line by line, skipping the gobblygook, and it makes a lot more sense
I struggled to figure out exactly what the science writer's argument was.
here's how I figured it out as someone who was confused: write out the conclusion and the premises that you see. in this case the conclusion was that microglia activity deteriorates cognitive facilities )I kicked Alzheimer's up into the domain) then the two premises is that it can be slowed by the acid and that the build up from protein causes the microglia to attack therefore impairing brain function. which of these two don't connect back to the premise/ isn't strong enough (yet) to go back to the premise? the acid premise and then I just looked in the answers for anything to strengthen that !
This really confused me. I immediately was able to find the conclusion, and I assumed the best support, would best support the conclusion? Can someone help explain?
@aswarre3 I got it wrong initially but right on BR. The second time I focused on reading carefully and noticed that the link between anti-inflammatory drugs (a-acid) and immune cells was not clear. That led me to AC B, which explicitly states the relationship between a-acid and immune cells. Broadly speaking, I guess what could work best for this question is noticing that there's an assumption being made (a-acid impacts immune cells) and see if any of the AC's address this assumption. Otherwise, I guess PoE is the best method.
@r.wang1 Thats a good way to view the problem! I think my brain was just stuck on supporting the conclusion. Rather than finding what premise is weak, and what AC supports it.
How do people see that this is strictly a causal stim? I didn't approach this question as needing to find the premise that doesn't connect to the conclusion. I got the answer correct but because I just saw all the other options as wrong (POE). I guess with the other strengthen and weaken stims not all the premises needed to connect to the conclusion and be supported. So I don't know how to recognize this stimulus shift and strategy shift on a timed PT or Drill for example. If anyone has any tips that would be great!
omg i got it right im learninggggg
immediate skip and come back later type question lmao
Note to self: replace the jargon in the answer choices with the exact terminology/referrred to thing