If a schools gonna revoke someones degree then they should have to give back all the money they spent on tuition. Idc what they did they paid six figures for that degree.
@Isabella! I think he's referring to the facts triggering the rule. This example was one where we are given the facts & the conclusion, and we need to choose the AC that fills in the gap. AKA, the rule.
Think of it this way: only a specific set of facts will trigger the rule. We need to pick the AC that provides us with the rule that is specific to the facts in the stim and justifies the conclusion.
@JoyelleBaek Academic fraud could be included in scientific fraud. But the important thing is that he did not commit fraud at the university, per their investigation. He committed it at his job, which presumably occurred after he received a PhD. The university revoked his PhD because he committed fraud related to his scientific work. Answer D gives us the principle the university invoked to make that decision.
@JoyelleBaek It's that he was found to have committed any type of scientific fraud that was grounds to remove his degree. Meyer's falls underneath the subset of 'anyone', so because he holds a 'phd' from Williamstown, and since he was found to have committed scientific fraud from his current employer it doesn't matter if he didn't when he got his PHD, because if it's true anyone with a phd from williamstown is found to have committed scientific fraud then they CAN have their PHD revoked anyway
I focused on the fact that he committed scientific fraud but they could not prove academic fraud. Therefore, if they still revoked his PhD, we cannot say anything about academic fraud being the reason. Obtaining his PhD doesn't have anything to do with the scientific fraud he committed.
I chose D but would not articulate my reasoning for picking it in the same way the video does.
I paid attention to the fact that if UW revoked Meyer's PHD even though he didn't falsify data towards his PHD, it still matters that he committed scientific fraud at all.
So, the rule must state that anyone who is a PhD from UW cannot commit scientific fraud---not just at the school (which answer A is giving the narrower range of), but in the field as a whole.
Wohoo I go this right!! But maybe I just got lucky? the reason why is because I READ IT VERY CAREFULLY. A and D are worded almost the exact same but with one difference-- "academic vs "scientific" and the stimulus only speaks about scientific fraud specifically....
@GiannaMariaMGuido Maybe, but the "proper reason" why A is wrong is because the stim says that they didn't find evidence that he falsified data in his doctoral thesis aka "in the course of pursuing that PhD", so why would that be the basis to revoke it?
For anyone who is confused about why D is right, I overlooked the fact that he committed fraud at WORK, which is separate from when he completed his PhD. AC D says anyone who is found to commit fraud will have their PhD revoked, it doesn’t matter when they committed it. I think a lot of us didn’t realize although he was cleared for not committing fraud in his thesis, he still committed fraud at work which is why his PhD was revoked.
when I clicked on "show question," the page just kept refreshing without actually pulling up the question. My discussion and bookmark tab worked but not the show question tab. I exited out and reopened the page and it still did not work.
I always try the question on the lessons before watching the lesson. I feel very secure in my understanding of why the correct answer is D before watching the lesson. Should I still watch the whole video...? What are others doing?
I usually watch it through at a much increased speed in order to double check the reasoning as well as also to ensure that I correctly parsed any grammar for the stimulus and answer choices
@madelinerose94534 I will usually skip the choices that I know for sure are wrong and I will watch the answer choices for the ones I didn't cross out at first glance
He committed scientific fraud after completing his phd in a seperate instance which is the one his employer found. The University then went and validated the claim of fraud his employer found, then looked back at his phd thesis, but did not find fraud. These are presumably two separate instances of academic work and the question tricked you into assuming they were the same.
Though he didn't commit scientific fraud in his doctoral analysis, he was found to commit fraud in his work outside the university; under D, this would also necessitate revoking his licence.
#feedback for these video lessons it would be amazing if we could see all answer choices before the correct one is revealed first, it would allow for students to attempt to apply the lessons in real time and understand their mistakes as they do so with the video
57 comments
If a schools gonna revoke someones degree then they should have to give back all the money they spent on tuition. Idc what they did they paid six figures for that degree.
this one was a little confusing to do before the video but I got it right.
A) he already has a PHD
B) Admission doesn't matter, more about revoking
C) he is not a student, he is an employee
E) He was already hired
So basically is the answer inferring that he did not falsify data but did commit scientific fraud (another was presumably)?
Read in between the lines
Scientific fraud - validated
Falsified data in his doctoral thesis - no evidence that he had.
The rule should focus on "scientific fraud" specifically since this finding was validated by his University.
@deji This was so helpful, I did not catch this!
#help. I'm a bit confused by what he means with the facts fail to trigger the conditions. Are these conditions found in the AC's or in the Stimulus?
@Isabella! I think he's referring to the facts triggering the rule. This example was one where we are given the facts & the conclusion, and we need to choose the AC that fills in the gap. AKA, the rule.
Think of it this way: only a specific set of facts will trigger the rule. We need to pick the AC that provides us with the rule that is specific to the facts in the stim and justifies the conclusion.
am i wrong to say that all of the question types link
"What does our policy state" - a statement often used at my place of work
in other words, find the answer that is the most relevant. No need to overcomplicate here.
I know it's not really important but I can't understand scientific fraud =/= academic fraud.
I thought it can be interpreted that those two are the same, or scientific fraud can be included in academic fraud.
@JoyelleBaek Academic fraud could be included in scientific fraud. But the important thing is that he did not commit fraud at the university, per their investigation. He committed it at his job, which presumably occurred after he received a PhD. The university revoked his PhD because he committed fraud related to his scientific work. Answer D gives us the principle the university invoked to make that decision.
@JoyelleBaek It's that he was found to have committed any type of scientific fraud that was grounds to remove his degree. Meyer's falls underneath the subset of 'anyone', so because he holds a 'phd' from Williamstown, and since he was found to have committed scientific fraud from his current employer it doesn't matter if he didn't when he got his PHD, because if it's true anyone with a phd from williamstown is found to have committed scientific fraud then they CAN have their PHD revoked anyway
I focused on the fact that he committed scientific fraud but they could not prove academic fraud. Therefore, if they still revoked his PhD, we cannot say anything about academic fraud being the reason. Obtaining his PhD doesn't have anything to do with the scientific fraud he committed.
I chose D but would not articulate my reasoning for picking it in the same way the video does.
I paid attention to the fact that if UW revoked Meyer's PHD even though he didn't falsify data towards his PHD, it still matters that he committed scientific fraud at all.
So, the rule must state that anyone who is a PhD from UW cannot commit scientific fraud---not just at the school (which answer A is giving the narrower range of), but in the field as a whole.
Wohoo I go this right!! But maybe I just got lucky? the reason why is because I READ IT VERY CAREFULLY. A and D are worded almost the exact same but with one difference-- "academic vs "scientific" and the stimulus only speaks about scientific fraud specifically....
@GiannaMariaMGuido Maybe, but the "proper reason" why A is wrong is because the stim says that they didn't find evidence that he falsified data in his doctoral thesis aka "in the course of pursuing that PhD", so why would that be the basis to revoke it?
I wish J.Y would use harder questions for this, but I understand there are certain barriers prohibiting him from it. ugh
@CeciliaBurton1 I agree. I can't gauge how I'm doing with these level 1-2 questions.
For anyone who is confused about why D is right, I overlooked the fact that he committed fraud at WORK, which is separate from when he completed his PhD. AC D says anyone who is found to commit fraud will have their PhD revoked, it doesn’t matter when they committed it. I think a lot of us didn’t realize although he was cleared for not committing fraud in his thesis, he still committed fraud at work which is why his PhD was revoked.
Whats the difference between PSA and RRE?
#Help
when I clicked on "show question," the page just kept refreshing without actually pulling up the question. My discussion and bookmark tab worked but not the show question tab. I exited out and reopened the page and it still did not work.
No more Celtics basketball until October and no Jayson Tatum until sometime in 2026... it's really over
it was always the knicks
Haliburton says hi
@ebimoshiri03 cry more #HEATCulture
Is anyone else confused the difference between answer A and D they both seem similar and to be the right answer
'A' states "academic fraud in the course of pursing a PHD", he committed fraud at work (after achieving his PHD), so it wouldnt apply!
I always try the question on the lessons before watching the lesson. I feel very secure in my understanding of why the correct answer is D before watching the lesson. Should I still watch the whole video...? What are others doing?
I usually do just to make sure I know why the wrong answers were incorrect and why they might be appealing
I usually watch it through at a much increased speed in order to double check the reasoning as well as also to ensure that I correctly parsed any grammar for the stimulus and answer choices
@madelinerose94534 I will usually skip the choices that I know for sure are wrong and I will watch the answer choices for the ones I didn't cross out at first glance
How was the University able to validate this claim when, in the following line, it says that they found no evidence of this? Am I going insane?
He committed scientific fraud after completing his phd in a seperate instance which is the one his employer found. The University then went and validated the claim of fraud his employer found, then looked back at his phd thesis, but did not find fraud. These are presumably two separate instances of academic work and the question tricked you into assuming they were the same.
Can someone explain to me why "finding no evidence he had [commit sci fraud]" doesnt cancel out his charge / phd removal?
Though he didn't commit scientific fraud in his doctoral analysis, he was found to commit fraud in his work outside the university; under D, this would also necessitate revoking his licence.
See. I got this one wrong because I assumed Meyer was definitely an alien.
#feedback why did the 'Lets Review' sections disappear in the last couple lessons?
This is a "most justified" question, but am I right in assuming the answer would be correct even if we delete the "most"???
ya
#feedback for these video lessons it would be amazing if we could see all answer choices before the correct one is revealed first, it would allow for students to attempt to apply the lessons in real time and understand their mistakes as they do so with the video
click the magnifying glass "quick view" button that is right above the video, it shows the stimulus with all the answers
thank you