@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.
Hey all, I'm hijacking the top comment since I see many are still confused about the usage of “innocent people” in E. Since this question is asking for a principle, if E were the right answer, “innocent” would refer to the workers who didn’t know about the consequences of handling substance T. The rest of the AC states that manufacturers should be held responsible for this subset of people (aka innocent people who didn't know the consequences) if those consequences were preventable. The stimulus further supports this AC because the stim says there should have been research done on the substance beforehand. Therefore, E is correct.
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
@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.
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.
I got confused by the "innocent people" in answer E... I was thinking that innocent people would include non workers (people who live near the factory..etc) In answer A, I really didn't think paying medical bills is far from taking 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. ~
@Arsalan06 I fell for the sufficiency necessity confusion trap. B is wrong because it has the rule backwards. It takes the conclusion as premise, and premise as conclusion. I totally forgot about the indicators and interpreted 'only' as 'if' but the two are totally different
Something that is helping me navigate these questions is to think about the fact that the author's conclusion is not proven, its under question. so it shouldn't be the sufficient condition in our answer choice, because if we are unsure if a sufficient condition is triggered, then the whole thing is basically moot. In this case, the conclusion was that the company bears responsibility for what happened. In answer choice E, we see this conclusion as the necessary condition, with the sufficient condition being 'if those consequences were preventable'. We know that the consequences were preventable, the company could have investigated the safety of T before exposing its workers to it. So, the sufficient condition is triggered, and therefore the necessary condition follows, thus proving (or most justifying) our conclusion. Answer choice B does the opposite of what we are looking for. It places our conclusion as the sufficient condition, which basically leaves us in the same place we started. The conclusion is the author's opinion after all, so how can we ever know if this condition will be met?
Answer choice E looked perfect to me but really threw me off with the innocent people included in the answer. That was not something mentioned in the stim specifically so I thought B would have been the next best thing.
@DONAYa That's what I was thinking when answering the question because the last sentence says if they had investigated the substance, then nothing would've happened to the workers. Reinforcing the first sentence that they were unaware(innocent) of its side effects in the first place, while handling it and got sick years later because of that.
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 kinda disagree with the answer being "innocent people," the text says nothing about being innocent, and we have no idea if the workers are innocent, I think B for that reason was a better answer
78 comments
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.
@embino
Hey all, I'm hijacking the top comment since I see many are still confused about the usage of “innocent people” in E. Since this question is asking for a principle, if E were the right answer, “innocent” would refer to the workers who didn’t know about the consequences of handling substance T. The rest of the AC states that manufacturers should be held responsible for this subset of people (aka innocent people who didn't know the consequences) if those consequences were preventable. The stimulus further supports this AC because the stim says there should have been research done on the substance beforehand. Therefore, E is correct.
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
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.
average Industrial Revolution company management
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
I got confused by the "innocent people" in answer E... I was thinking that innocent people would include non workers (people who live near the factory..etc) In answer A, I really didn't think paying medical bills is far from taking responsibility.
Did anyone else make the same mistake? ;(
I did, but I thought it was wrong because the workers were never described as innocent in any specific way.
Why am I still making the oldest mistake in the book!!!!!!!!!! Ugh so frustrating
me too uhhhh
#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. ~
the "innocent people" threw me off causing me to choose B. I lowkey still don't get how its not B
@Arsalan06 Same, I thought it was too moralizing of a word choice. I guess they mean innocent = unaware / ignorant of the harm?
@TaylorBranch yea i think you're right
@Arsalan06 I fell for the sufficiency necessity confusion trap. B is wrong because it has the rule backwards. It takes the conclusion as premise, and premise as conclusion. I totally forgot about the indicators and interpreted 'only' as 'if' but the two are totally different
I am proud every single time I choose an answer that I am sure of and it turns out to be true!
Something that is helping me navigate these questions is to think about the fact that the author's conclusion is not proven, its under question. so it shouldn't be the sufficient condition in our answer choice, because if we are unsure if a sufficient condition is triggered, then the whole thing is basically moot. In this case, the conclusion was that the company bears responsibility for what happened. In answer choice E, we see this conclusion as the necessary condition, with the sufficient condition being 'if those consequences were preventable'. We know that the consequences were preventable, the company could have investigated the safety of T before exposing its workers to it. So, the sufficient condition is triggered, and therefore the necessary condition follows, thus proving (or most justifying) our conclusion. Answer choice B does the opposite of what we are looking for. It places our conclusion as the sufficient condition, which basically leaves us in the same place we started. The conclusion is the author's opinion after all, so how can we ever know if this condition will be met?
Answer choice E looked perfect to me but really threw me off with the innocent people included in the answer. That was not something mentioned in the stim specifically so I thought B would have been the next best thing.
These have been the hardest types of questions for me.
God bless you, J.Y.#feedback
so basically we had to assume these people were innocent because they didn't know?
@DONAYa That's what I was thinking when answering the question because the last sentence says if they had investigated the substance, then nothing would've happened to the workers. Reinforcing the first sentence that they were unaware(innocent) of its side effects in the first place, while handling it and got sick years later because of that.
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.
Do the last two words blink and jump around when you do the drill??
overthinked and picked B but got it right in BR
Felt right, stuck with my gut feeling, One sec Over!!! YES
I started getting these right but now I am having a hard time understanding.
@EdithM this one in particular was ridiculous
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
Almost fall for D..
translation of the stim:
many worker got ill because of t.
dunno know about t, but sitll should be responsible.
bc if the company investigated earlier, it is preventable.
preventable -> responsible
D: be responsible, whether preventable or not
E: preventable -> responsible
mans is so great at explaining these concepts but this handwriting is... atrocious J.Y. LOL still love you!!!!!!
I kinda disagree with the answer being "innocent people," the text says nothing about being innocent, and we have no idea if the workers are innocent, I think B for that reason was a better answer