I can't stress enough how well this V2 version is formatted compared to V1. Don't get me wrong, V1 does a really good job. But V2 perfectly organized in terms of how is supposed to be taught. By following the LR section in order, I have understood the lessons 10x better, and has facilitated my understanding of different LR questions Stems, since they are all connected in some degree.
#help Any advice or tips for someone still struggling with WS and now these PSA questions? I have gone back over every question, AC and video multiple times and I still feel lost.
maybe it can help to review foundational lessons and grammar parsing to help you get a stronger understanding of the logic of arguments and how to read them
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although he was cleared for not committing fraud in his thesis, he still committed fraud at work which is why his PhD was revoked.
If a wrong answer "goes to the wrong place," which J.Y. asserts at the end of this video is the second reason a PSAr answer can be wrong, then is that the same as "failing the necessary condition"? Trying to think ahead about how the PSAr concept ties in with sufficient and necessary assumption questions.
@JuliaWise In the next video, J.Y. confirms that yes, if there are "wrong consequences/incorrect destination" in the answer, then the answer is failing the necessary condition.
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
I do not understand why we ignore the 3rd premise, it seems pretty important to me. As he stated, why should he get punished for something he did not do? How do I know when in the future to pick and choose which premises of which questions to ignore?
He's getting punished because even though he didn't commit fraud to obtain his phd the rule says that anyone who commits scientific fraud and holds a phd from that university will get their degree revoked.
Whether or not the university found that Meyer also falsified data in his Doctoral thesis would not have changed the outcome/conclusion (revoking his PhD). In either case they were going to revoke his PhD because he committed scientific fraud while working for some other employer.
The question wants us to find a rule from the answer choices that most justifies the conclusion. In other words, which rule from the answer choices if it had the facts/premises applied to it, would most justify revoking Meyer's PhD?
Answer choice D does that by saying "Anyone who holds a PhD from UW, and is found to have committed scientific fraud, will have their PhD revoked". So when we apply the facts to this rule, we know that Meyer did have his PhD from UW, and he did commit scientific fraud (where he committed it does not matter), which is why he had his PhD revoked.
Even if you did not ignore the third premise, you would still choose answer D, because in the other answer choices, you could not apply the facts to the rules. In Answer B for example, it talks about "admitting a student to UW", but the facts/premises in the stimulus do not trigger that rule, because Meyer has already graduated, and is not applying to get admitted in the university.
Answer E talks about "hiring someone", but nowhere in the stimulus do we see a fact/premise talking about Meyer wanting to work at the university.
Answer C talks about dismissing someone as a consequence to academic fraud, but as a graduate, Meyer cannot be dismissed as he does not even attend the university.
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.
#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
71 comments
this video was easily the best explanation video on this platform
was just about to write this. 100%
I can't stress enough how well this V2 version is formatted compared to V1. Don't get me wrong, V1 does a really good job. But V2 perfectly organized in terms of how is supposed to be taught. By following the LR section in order, I have understood the lessons 10x better, and has facilitated my understanding of different LR questions Stems, since they are all connected in some degree.
Completely AGREE!! And it doesn't feel like I have to rush through every lesson trying to finish
#help Any advice or tips for someone still struggling with WS and now these PSA questions? I have gone back over every question, AC and video multiple times and I still feel lost.
agreed x 1000000
maybe it can help to review foundational lessons and grammar parsing to help you get a stronger understanding of the logic of arguments and how to read them
See. I got this one wrong because I assumed Meyer was definitely an alien.
in other words, find the answer that is the most relevant. No need to overcomplicate here.
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
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.
@CeciliaBurton1 The good news is we can drill until we almost never get it wrong 😭
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?
am i wrong to say that all of the question types link
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.
#feedback why did the 'Lets Review' sections disappear in the last couple lessons?
Why do these feel easier than the previous sections strengthen questions?
@jorr I feel the same way! The last section was harder
If a wrong answer "goes to the wrong place," which J.Y. asserts at the end of this video is the second reason a PSAr answer can be wrong, then is that the same as "failing the necessary condition"? Trying to think ahead about how the PSAr concept ties in with sufficient and necessary assumption questions.
@JuliaWise In the next video, J.Y. confirms that yes, if there are "wrong consequences/incorrect destination" in the answer, then the answer is failing the necessary condition.
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
Whats the difference between PSA and RRE?
@jjslay RRE you are explaining why a weird thing happened and PSA you are finding a missing link that helps the conclusion be true
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
I do not understand why we ignore the 3rd premise, it seems pretty important to me. As he stated, why should he get punished for something he did not do? How do I know when in the future to pick and choose which premises of which questions to ignore?
I don't think his Doctoral thesis is the same data set his employer said he faked.
He's getting punished because even though he didn't commit fraud to obtain his phd the rule says that anyone who commits scientific fraud and holds a phd from that university will get their degree revoked.
Whether or not the university found that Meyer also falsified data in his Doctoral thesis would not have changed the outcome/conclusion (revoking his PhD). In either case they were going to revoke his PhD because he committed scientific fraud while working for some other employer.
The question wants us to find a rule from the answer choices that most justifies the conclusion. In other words, which rule from the answer choices if it had the facts/premises applied to it, would most justify revoking Meyer's PhD?
Answer choice D does that by saying "Anyone who holds a PhD from UW, and is found to have committed scientific fraud, will have their PhD revoked". So when we apply the facts to this rule, we know that Meyer did have his PhD from UW, and he did commit scientific fraud (where he committed it does not matter), which is why he had his PhD revoked.
Even if you did not ignore the third premise, you would still choose answer D, because in the other answer choices, you could not apply the facts to the rules. In Answer B for example, it talks about "admitting a student to UW", but the facts/premises in the stimulus do not trigger that rule, because Meyer has already graduated, and is not applying to get admitted in the university.
Answer E talks about "hiring someone", but nowhere in the stimulus do we see a fact/premise talking about Meyer wanting to work at the university.
Answer C talks about dismissing someone as a consequence to academic fraud, but as a graduate, Meyer cannot be dismissed as he does not even attend the university.
I hope this clarifies it a bit.
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!
"What does our policy state" - a statement often used at my place of work
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!
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.
#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
I have a question. What happens if one of the answer choices is the contrapositive of the missing rule? Is it still correct?
So basically is the answer inferring that he did not falsify data but did commit scientific fraud (another was presumably)?