@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?
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
I'm breezing through these PSArs! They are pretty easy once you realize they're not like MBTs lol.
And PSArs are somewhat the same as MC questions because your answer just has to reiterate a "rule" you identify within the sentences. If it doesn't, then it's a wrong answer.
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 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.
74 comments
A. Nothing mentioned compensation
B. ONLY? such strong wording especially since they didn't know it was harming their employees
C. Sure they have an obligation but again the employer didn't know of the harm
D. This didn't make sense at all
Felt right, stuck with my gut feeling, One sec Over!!! YES
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
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?
I started getting these right but now I am having a hard time understanding.
@EdithM this one in particular was ridiculous
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
I'm breezing through these PSArs! They are pretty easy once you realize they're not like MBTs lol.
And PSArs are somewhat the same as MC questions because your answer just has to reiterate a "rule" you identify within the sentences. If it doesn't, then it's a wrong answer.
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.
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.
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.