I chose B over E because the manufacturer didn't take an action. They didn't take precautions which is inaction. B was saying only if it was preventable which could still apply to the rule since it was preventable...
@ANNASHAHVERDYAN It boils down to grammar, when I am confused with too much wording; I simplify it by subject, verb, and predicate (object).
In these question type, we are trying to match the correct answer choice to our rule: If preventable + harmed people, then manufacturer should be responsible
Innocent is modifying people, so put that in parenthesis. The answer choice is focusing on a subset of people, while the stem is saying all people. As long as there is one premise (sufficient) to conclusion, then that is the correct answer.
This is how I paraphrased (E):
E: If consequences were preventable + harmed (innocent) people, then should be held responsible.
Could someone explain how D does the sufficient-necessary confusion? I got E right, because I saw the "if" and built up the argument. Just curious about D though.
@R.tired D is just kind of irrelevant and it doesn't help us apply the rule. The whole stimulus is saying that the manufacturer should be held responsible, and ignorance doesn't absolve all responsibility. So the manufacturer having knowledge has SOME influence on their responsibility, since you can't absolve all of it. Answer choice D is just denying this.
@elephant15 When answering a weaken question we don't want to attack the premise because we're supposed to take the facts given to us in the argument as true. However, this doesn't mean that this method doesn't weaken an argument, just that it doesn't work as a strategy when we're supposed to take those facts as true for the question. Attacking premises is a perfectly valid way to weaken an argument otherwise, so it would be the opposite of what we need for this question!
@Andrewstine99 "only" is a group 2 indicator. When I saw it here, I immediately thought about sufficient v. necessary conditions. (B) switches the two.
i think so, but I don’t really get what the “innocent people” thing is doing there in the first place. It seems to imply that if the workers weren’t innocent then them getting sick would be alright because they’re bad people or something, which doesn’t really follow from what’s in the stimulus
@embino I don't see how it isn't reasonable. Even if they're making nuclear warheads, employees should be afforded adequate protection regardless of if the outcome of their labour is "good"
@embino "innocent" confused me as I remembered back to our voluntary vs involuntary example of the firefighter. I was not sure if innocent in this context would apply to employees who would need to voluntarily opt into the job to begin with.
I keep confusing sufficiency and necessity in these questions.... and his explanation makes complete sense when I hear it but when I'm going through the questions myself I just keep making the same mistake. Any tips on how I can catch myself on this?
@JenniferFinch I was there yesterday. I am still working on it but I went back to the foundational lessons and practiced my translation. When I looked at those translations from the lens of a bridge It made more sense
Not sure if this is 100% good practice, but I have found myself eliminating answer choices that say "Whether or not" because it's grammatically incorrect (you just need to say "whether"), and so far, it has worked every time.
Has anyone else done this or can attest/deny this method?
For some of these questions that strat may have worked but it will not always work. Try to think about the principle the stimulus relies on before you even try to critique the questions. The correct answer will likely be something along the lines of the principle you come up with on your own. At the very least, the principle you come up with on your own will allow you to eliminate answers that go against that.
While I did get the answer right, I was definitely stuck between D and E for a second. For this question type I definitely have a hard time breaking down the stimulus proficiently.
#help Can someone please explain to me in a better way how B is a sufficiency/necessity confusion? I mean, I ended up picking E overall, but I don't fully understand how B is wrong.
B is not only a mixed reversal of sufficient and necessary conditions, but this mix up of the conditions makes the statement way too narrow. "...only for the preventable consequences of their actions." takes us to the wrong destination on the Premise to Conclusion train, whereby the "find the rule" application technique always calls for the Premises functioning as sufficient assumptions and the conclusion serving as the necessary assumption.
Also, B only has one of the three sufficient assumptions when it really should have all three, because it should read as: preventable AND workers didn't know AND caused harm ---> manufacturer should be at least partially responsible. The sufficient conditions function together using the term "AND" as all three rules should be triggered to get the right destination of the conclusion. However, sometimes answer choices might not list all the sufficient condition- rules. That's why it says just choose the "best" answer and not the correct answer. I think JY probably could have emphasized that a bit more. ~
I personally don't think the answer is a reflection of the stimulus, at least not in the sense that it shares the same context/premises/etc.
E is moreso a general rule that previously had no bearing, and inserting it into the stimulus would help justify its conclusion, hence it being the right answer.
E just says that IF harmful action was preventable THEN held responsible.
It doesn't say that ALL the companies actions were harmful or preventable or whatever, it just says that if there was something that is harming and is preventable, then the company should be held responsible for the consequences.
I had it narrowed down to D and E. Ended up going with E because If D were true, there is no argument. The argument more or less says a lot of damage could have been prevented had they done something. Which is what E says. D, just says they are blameworthy regardless. Which may or may not be true; however, it was just not stated.
when i picked e in a timely manner. changed to b in BR. noticed properly the N and S conditions in both e and b, but somehow misplaced the N and B condition in the stimulus. my brain does not want to grasp on this concept for whatever reason. if anyone has a little like fun example or something to get this fundamental concept to stick in my brain would be greatly appreciated!!
I think you should master the relationshiop between sufficiency and necessary. The basics are to first know the indicators.
For necessary, its usually only, necessary, requires etc. As we can see in B, it has that word ONLY.
so it would be diagrammed as responsible -> preventable consequences.
That's an answer were not looking for because it giving an answer in which it makes the conclusion a sufficient. We are looking to prove the conclusion correct, so the conclusion shouldn't be in the sufficient side.
I really appreciate the longer, more detailed video explanations in V2, but I also miss the concise “Let’s Review” portion that was at the end of the earlier V2 written lessons. #feedback
Answer choice B says "manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions". The word "only" is a necessary condition indicator so it follows a necessary condition and the words before it are the sufficient condition.
Sufficiency and Necessity, in a case like this, is confusing to me... When I see a question like this, I need to realize that the answers are so similar and then I need to figure out if the suff. and nece. are swapped.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
60 comments
overthinked and picked B but got it right in BR
I chose B over E because the manufacturer didn't take an action. They didn't take precautions which is inaction. B was saying only if it was preventable which could still apply to the rule since it was preventable...
I am proud every single time I choose an answer that I am sure of and it turns out to be true!
These have been the hardest types of questions for me.
26 Secs over but I got it
yayay got another one correct!
E tripped me because it said innocent people, but what about the non innocent people, how do we knowwww????
@ANNASHAHVERDYAN It boils down to grammar, when I am confused with too much wording; I simplify it by subject, verb, and predicate (object).
In these question type, we are trying to match the correct answer choice to our rule: If preventable + harmed people, then manufacturer should be responsible
Innocent is modifying people, so put that in parenthesis. The answer choice is focusing on a subset of people, while the stem is saying all people. As long as there is one premise (sufficient) to conclusion, then that is the correct answer.
This is how I paraphrased (E):
E: If consequences were preventable + harmed (innocent) people, then should be held responsible.
@amhuynh omg this is a great explanation. ty.
Could someone explain how D does the sufficient-necessary confusion? I got E right, because I saw the "if" and built up the argument. Just curious about D though.
@R.tired D is just kind of irrelevant and it doesn't help us apply the rule. The whole stimulus is saying that the manufacturer should be held responsible, and ignorance doesn't absolve all responsibility. So the manufacturer having knowledge has SOME influence on their responsibility, since you can't absolve all of it. Answer choice D is just denying this.
For D, i thought weakening questions will not attack the premise. Doesn't AC D do just that, yet the explanation still says it weakens?
@elephant15 When answering a weaken question we don't want to attack the premise because we're supposed to take the facts given to us in the argument as true. However, this doesn't mean that this method doesn't weaken an argument, just that it doesn't work as a strategy when we're supposed to take those facts as true for the question. Attacking premises is a perfectly valid way to weaken an argument otherwise, so it would be the opposite of what we need for this question!
average Industrial Revolution company management
Is it a reasonable assumption to make that the workers were innocent people?
@embino Apparently
@Andrewstine99 "only" is a group 2 indicator. When I saw it here, I immediately thought about sufficient v. necessary conditions. (B) switches the two.
i think so, but I don’t really get what the “innocent people” thing is doing there in the first place. It seems to imply that if the workers weren’t innocent then them getting sick would be alright because they’re bad people or something, which doesn’t really follow from what’s in the stimulus
@embino I don't see how it isn't reasonable. Even if they're making nuclear warheads, employees should be afforded adequate protection regardless of if the outcome of their labour is "good"
@embino "innocent" confused me as I remembered back to our voluntary vs involuntary example of the firefighter. I was not sure if innocent in this context would apply to employees who would need to voluntarily opt into the job to begin with.
so is it safe to always be wary when we see "only" in an answer choice for these questions?
@moonydidit no. i thought that with another question, avoided the word "only" and it turned out to be the right answer
I keep confusing sufficiency and necessity in these questions.... and his explanation makes complete sense when I hear it but when I'm going through the questions myself I just keep making the same mistake. Any tips on how I can catch myself on this?
@JenniferFinch I was there yesterday. I am still working on it but I went back to the foundational lessons and practiced my translation. When I looked at those translations from the lens of a bridge It made more sense
Why am I still making the oldest mistake in the book!!!!!!!!!! Ugh so frustrating
me too uhhhh
God bless you, J.Y.#feedback
Not sure if this is 100% good practice, but I have found myself eliminating answer choices that say "Whether or not" because it's grammatically incorrect (you just need to say "whether"), and so far, it has worked every time.
Has anyone else done this or can attest/deny this method?
For some of these questions that strat may have worked but it will not always work. Try to think about the principle the stimulus relies on before you even try to critique the questions. The correct answer will likely be something along the lines of the principle you come up with on your own. At the very least, the principle you come up with on your own will allow you to eliminate answers that go against that.
While I did get the answer right, I was definitely stuck between D and E for a second. For this question type I definitely have a hard time breaking down the stimulus proficiently.
D is breaking the connection between action and responsibility
#help Can someone please explain to me in a better way how B is a sufficiency/necessity confusion? I mean, I ended up picking E overall, but I don't fully understand how B is wrong.
B is not only a mixed reversal of sufficient and necessary conditions, but this mix up of the conditions makes the statement way too narrow. "...only for the preventable consequences of their actions." takes us to the wrong destination on the Premise to Conclusion train, whereby the "find the rule" application technique always calls for the Premises functioning as sufficient assumptions and the conclusion serving as the necessary assumption.
Also, B only has one of the three sufficient assumptions when it really should have all three, because it should read as: preventable AND workers didn't know AND caused harm ---> manufacturer should be at least partially responsible. The sufficient conditions function together using the term "AND" as all three rules should be triggered to get the right destination of the conclusion. However, sometimes answer choices might not list all the sufficient condition- rules. That's why it says just choose the "best" answer and not the correct answer. I think JY probably could have emphasized that a bit more. ~
"at least some"
"many of"
"E" infers that all the consequences were preventable. Is that the case based on the premises/argument?
I personally don't think the answer is a reflection of the stimulus, at least not in the sense that it shares the same context/premises/etc.
E is moreso a general rule that previously had no bearing, and inserting it into the stimulus would help justify its conclusion, hence it being the right answer.
E just says that IF harmful action was preventable THEN held responsible.
It doesn't say that ALL the companies actions were harmful or preventable or whatever, it just says that if there was something that is harming and is preventable, then the company should be held responsible for the consequences.
I had it narrowed down to D and E. Ended up going with E because If D were true, there is no argument. The argument more or less says a lot of damage could have been prevented had they done something. Which is what E says. D, just says they are blameworthy regardless. Which may or may not be true; however, it was just not stated.
when i picked e in a timely manner. changed to b in BR. noticed properly the N and S conditions in both e and b, but somehow misplaced the N and B condition in the stimulus. my brain does not want to grasp on this concept for whatever reason. if anyone has a little like fun example or something to get this fundamental concept to stick in my brain would be greatly appreciated!!
I think you should master the relationshiop between sufficiency and necessary. The basics are to first know the indicators.
For necessary, its usually only, necessary, requires etc. As we can see in B, it has that word ONLY.
so it would be diagrammed as responsible -> preventable consequences.
That's an answer were not looking for because it giving an answer in which it makes the conclusion a sufficient. We are looking to prove the conclusion correct, so the conclusion shouldn't be in the sufficient side.
I really appreciate the longer, more detailed video explanations in V2, but I also miss the concise “Let’s Review” portion that was at the end of the earlier V2 written lessons. #feedback
Do the last two words blink and jump around when you do the drill??
Can someone explain how to see the suff and nec in both answer B? just am missing how to see that with that wording
B) responsible-->preventable
P--> C needed: preventable--> responsible
this is another way to see it that helped me!
if "if" took "only" place in C then it would work bc it would read
preventable--> responsible
Answer choice B says "manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions". The word "only" is a necessary condition indicator so it follows a necessary condition and the words before it are the sufficient condition.
Sufficiency and Necessity, in a case like this, is confusing to me... When I see a question like this, I need to realize that the answers are so similar and then I need to figure out if the suff. and nece. are swapped.