Find answer that supports/weakens your summation depending on the question.
I've also noticed that some wrong answers can introduce unnecessary info/ideas/nouns, are just too crazy, or too forward in quantifier verbiage.
Lastly, some correct answers for weaken introduce a new idea/total opposite whereas some strengthen answers do not restate verbatim its premises/conclusions, but are roughly similar/allude to them.
@Sunnieqw22 I don't think so. My reasoning for D was different (tutors correct me if I'm wrong), but regardless of the size, I feel like the text establishes that a major asteroid strike only kills organisms in or near the region. So whether the asteroid was not of equal size or there was no other asteroid, it still would not account for the dinosaurs presumably being located all over the world. E is the only choice that accounts for this
@tygene Honestly one of the things I do that helps me is to imagine someone annoying arguing with ne and I have to nitpick their arguments. In this case there's a massive flaw in the argument once you consider that most of the worlds population of dinos lived near the impact.
Saying B is irrelevant is just flat out wrong. The stimulus uses the argument that similar, if not larger, craters did not make the dinosaurs go extinct, so how could the Chhicxulub? B explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub
@epayne17 Can you elaborate on this part -- "explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub." How are you getting this from (B)?
It seems you're reading the idea that crater size depends on asteroid size + impact force as if that means the larger craters referred to in the last sentence had smaller impact force?
If that's right, let's accept that. What's the connection to weakening the argument, even if the larger craters had weaker impact force?
So if the stimulus read that the asteroid caused no extinctions then would AC C weaken the stimulus? Also would the wording of AC C have to be more specific, instead of fossils being discovered it would have to say that it somehow found that there was at least one species that was went extinct because of the asteroid?
@Calin One more thing, for AC D J.Y talks about how if the stimulus read that the asteroid was worldwide but it was some other asteroid then AC D would work. Can we say that just because there is no evidence that it didn't happen? Does this weaken the argument? Also if AC D would have said that we don't know of any other asteroid that struck earth at the same time that wouldn't weaken the argument because even if we don't know something that doesn't mean it didn't happen, correct?
I think the beauty of E is also that it uses the premises against the argument. The argument says that the strike can kill many organisms nearby, but it doesn't impact organisms worldwide beyond that limited range. But if most of the world's dinosaurs live within that limited range (nearby the strike), then yes, the Chicxulub asteroid did cause many of the last dinosaur species to go extinct.
I always have a different assumption than the one I was supposed to have haha. I thought the correct answer would be about the assumption that meteor strikes DO have worldwide effects (which I have because of all the dinosaur extinction documentaries I watched as a kid).
@JRamirez I overcame this issue by basically putting everything in a box and everything outside of that box doesn’t exist . That means that I focus primarily on first keywords that I’m supposed to look for based on the type of question or answer that I’m looking at. If the keywords don’t do me much for me then I will do process of elimination on the obvious ones that it cannot be and then work my way argument back again
So what kinds of question notes have y'all found are helpful to write down during the blind review? Especially when you haven't changed from your original answer
@jolie.abdo32 I write what my method of finding the answer was, even if it was wrong initially. This is to track my initial thoughts. Then I say why I chose it. Then I go and try to explain (not in great detail) why the other 4 choices are wrong. If my initial answer is wrong and I change my answer in blind review, I explain why I think my initial was wrong and why the new answer is right, keeping my notes on what were my initial thoughts. Then I rate how confident I am with my answer.
@jolie.abdo32 I write out the important premises from the stimmy and the conclusion in my own simplified words. I try to make them as simple and plain as possible without losing any important context. Then I write out why I feel each answer is incorrect and the trick it's trying to play. Some answers are so bad, I just write that they're irrelevant. I also explain why I chose the answer I did. If I'm switching answers, I write where I think I went wrong originally. Then after blind review, if I still got it wrong (which is rare), I create another note stating how and why I got it wrong. And what I could do to avoid a similar mistake in the future.
@jolie.abdo32 I actually have two journals. One is for all the lessons that are detailed, including all the examples written and everything.. the journal I’m currently using I use for the main skeleton structures and main points so that I can reference back when I’m d blind review. Hopefully that makes sense.
@maciascarmen6455 As the other person said, your priority rating is based on whether you personally got it right originally, in blind review, or not at all.
The difficulty rating is based on the average score of other people. The middle score is where 50% of people with that score got it right, the lower score is where only 25% of people with that score got it right, and the high score is where 75% of people with that score got it right.
In this one, 25% of people with a score of 139 got it right, 50% of people with a score of 147 got it right, and 75% of people with a score of 154 got it right.
@maciascarmen6455 hey three or higher is an automatic wind for me. Anything lower as well like I should’ve gotten it right which is just a Hit to my self-esteemif I miss.
Also, in this question and throughout the lesson you have been saying that the answer choice cannot contradict or attack the premise, but doesn't the correct answer do exactly that? Or is it okay to contradict/attack premises that are assumptions?
You should not directly contradict the conclusion. You can and should attack premises.
The conclusion is that the asteroid did not directly cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs.
If the answer had been simply: "The asteroid directly caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs." It would have been attacking the conclusion. But it did not. It found a loop hole in the logic of one of the premises.
The author concedes that the impact would have killed all the dinosaurs in the area around the impact, but this would not have been enough to kill most of the dinos in the world. The loophole answer E exploits is to say "What if most of the dinos were in the impact radius of the asteroid." This would mean the impact killed most of the dinosaurs. Weakening the argument.
I can see how this could be interpreted as attacking the conclusion and I guess it is, but indirectly. It is adding new information that undercuts the conclusion, it does not outright say the conclusion is wrong.
What "anythingforselenas" is trying to say is that JY, throughout lessons and PTs', multiple times said do not attack the Goku (do not attack the premises), except for extremely rare cases which you are virtually impossible to encounter. But what we're doing here is attacking the Goku.
I took that recommendation with a grain of salt. Maybe generally we shouldn't attack the Goku, when there's another option that attacks the connection between premises and conclusion instead. However, that's far from being universally true.
89 comments
So I did not really make an assumption, I felt it was a given that they were around the astroid so E felt like the wrong answer.
D and B were pointless in my eyes. E was like catch me in my prime and I could've got'em. C was Yes, dead from crater.
My process so far has been:
Identify the question type
Separate every sentence into premises/conclusions
Reword/Simplify what the passage is saying
Find answer that supports/weakens your summation depending on the question.
I've also noticed that some wrong answers can introduce unnecessary info/ideas/nouns, are just too crazy, or too forward in quantifier verbiage.
Lastly, some correct answers for weaken introduce a new idea/total opposite whereas some strengthen answers do not restate verbatim its premises/conclusions, but are roughly similar/allude to them.
Why are level 3s easy but level 4s are significantly harder :/
Could D be correct if it didn't say "of equal size"; if it just said no evidence of any other asteroid...? @ anyone
@Sunnieqw22 I don't think so. My reasoning for D was different (tutors correct me if I'm wrong), but regardless of the size, I feel like the text establishes that a major asteroid strike only kills organisms in or near the region. So whether the asteroid was not of equal size or there was no other asteroid, it still would not account for the dinosaurs presumably being located all over the world. E is the only choice that accounts for this
This one makes more sense to me than the previous 2 100%
I got it! Question: does anyone else sit through the explanation even when you get it right?
@legallysaz I do! I sit through the whole thing. Sometimes I put it on 1.5 speed if im getting the concepts but just want to learn what could go wrong
Got it and only 45 sec over. Yay!
idk im so lost T^T
@tygene Honestly one of the things I do that helps me is to imagine someone annoying arguing with ne and I have to nitpick their arguments. In this case there's a massive flaw in the argument once you consider that most of the worlds population of dinos lived near the impact.
Saying B is irrelevant is just flat out wrong. The stimulus uses the argument that similar, if not larger, craters did not make the dinosaurs go extinct, so how could the Chhicxulub? B explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub
@epayne17 Can you elaborate on this part -- "explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub." How are you getting this from (B)?
It seems you're reading the idea that crater size depends on asteroid size + impact force as if that means the larger craters referred to in the last sentence had smaller impact force?
If that's right, let's accept that. What's the connection to weakening the argument, even if the larger craters had weaker impact force?
BOOM LETS GO W's IN THE CHAT
So if the stimulus read that the asteroid caused no extinctions then would AC C weaken the stimulus? Also would the wording of AC C have to be more specific, instead of fossils being discovered it would have to say that it somehow found that there was at least one species that was went extinct because of the asteroid?
@Calin One more thing, for AC D J.Y talks about how if the stimulus read that the asteroid was worldwide but it was some other asteroid then AC D would work. Can we say that just because there is no evidence that it didn't happen? Does this weaken the argument? Also if AC D would have said that we don't know of any other asteroid that struck earth at the same time that wouldn't weaken the argument because even if we don't know something that doesn't mean it didn't happen, correct?
I do better when I read rather than watch the lesson. Is anyone else experiencing that?
I think the beauty of E is also that it uses the premises against the argument. The argument says that the strike can kill many organisms nearby, but it doesn't impact organisms worldwide beyond that limited range. But if most of the world's dinosaurs live within that limited range (nearby the strike), then yes, the Chicxulub asteroid did cause many of the last dinosaur species to go extinct.
I always have a different assumption than the one I was supposed to have haha. I thought the correct answer would be about the assumption that meteor strikes DO have worldwide effects (which I have because of all the dinosaur extinction documentaries I watched as a kid).
C was so attractive but had to reread the stimulus first before I got to the correct answer--just 1min over (ugh)(
Stupid internal assumptions!
@JRamirez I overcame this issue by basically putting everything in a box and everything outside of that box doesn’t exist . That means that I focus primarily on first keywords that I’m supposed to look for based on the type of question or answer that I’m looking at. If the keywords don’t do me much for me then I will do process of elimination on the obvious ones that it cannot be and then work my way argument back again
#feedback, please fix the blind review! It shows the answer before we can take a second attempt
That party had to end in a bang
So what kinds of question notes have y'all found are helpful to write down during the blind review? Especially when you haven't changed from your original answer
@jolie.abdo32 I write what my method of finding the answer was, even if it was wrong initially. This is to track my initial thoughts. Then I say why I chose it. Then I go and try to explain (not in great detail) why the other 4 choices are wrong. If my initial answer is wrong and I change my answer in blind review, I explain why I think my initial was wrong and why the new answer is right, keeping my notes on what were my initial thoughts. Then I rate how confident I am with my answer.
@jolie.abdo32 I write out the important premises from the stimmy and the conclusion in my own simplified words. I try to make them as simple and plain as possible without losing any important context. Then I write out why I feel each answer is incorrect and the trick it's trying to play. Some answers are so bad, I just write that they're irrelevant. I also explain why I chose the answer I did. If I'm switching answers, I write where I think I went wrong originally. Then after blind review, if I still got it wrong (which is rare), I create another note stating how and why I got it wrong. And what I could do to avoid a similar mistake in the future.
@jolie.abdo32 I actually have two journals. One is for all the lessons that are detailed, including all the examples written and everything.. the journal I’m currently using I use for the main skeleton structures and main points so that I can reference back when I’m d blind review. Hopefully that makes sense.
Any time I get one right I get excited and then see that it is always a low priority question
priority depends on whether u get it right or wrong
@maciascarmen6455 As the other person said, your priority rating is based on whether you personally got it right originally, in blind review, or not at all.
The difficulty rating is based on the average score of other people. The middle score is where 50% of people with that score got it right, the lower score is where only 25% of people with that score got it right, and the high score is where 75% of people with that score got it right.
In this one, 25% of people with a score of 139 got it right, 50% of people with a score of 147 got it right, and 75% of people with a score of 154 got it right.
@maciascarmen6455 hey three or higher is an automatic wind for me. Anything lower as well like I should’ve gotten it right which is just a Hit to my self-esteemif I miss.
Mr. Worldwide
My problem is I think I rush my thinking a bit too much, I need to slow down and take all the information in….
Was between D AND E AND CHOSE D :(
Also, in this question and throughout the lesson you have been saying that the answer choice cannot contradict or attack the premise, but doesn't the correct answer do exactly that? Or is it okay to contradict/attack premises that are assumptions?
You should not directly contradict the conclusion. You can and should attack premises.
The conclusion is that the asteroid did not directly cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs.
If the answer had been simply: "The asteroid directly caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs." It would have been attacking the conclusion. But it did not. It found a loop hole in the logic of one of the premises.
The author concedes that the impact would have killed all the dinosaurs in the area around the impact, but this would not have been enough to kill most of the dinos in the world. The loophole answer E exploits is to say "What if most of the dinos were in the impact radius of the asteroid." This would mean the impact killed most of the dinosaurs. Weakening the argument.
I can see how this could be interpreted as attacking the conclusion and I guess it is, but indirectly. It is adding new information that undercuts the conclusion, it does not outright say the conclusion is wrong.
What "anythingforselenas" is trying to say is that JY, throughout lessons and PTs', multiple times said do not attack the Goku (do not attack the premises), except for extremely rare cases which you are virtually impossible to encounter. But what we're doing here is attacking the Goku.
I took that recommendation with a grain of salt. Maybe generally we shouldn't attack the Goku, when there's another option that attacks the connection between premises and conclusion instead. However, that's far from being universally true.