I feel like this is breaking some sort of pattern that was not present in the last two Q's. Got it wrong both times because E seemed too simple, too good to be true type of answer.
@Disney I watch if I get wrong or don't understand why I understand the answer. If I know why I got it sometimes I'll skip and sometimes I'll go over the explanation picture to look at the explanation and breakdown in writing forms. If im lost all together I'll look at both.
@Disney I like to re-open the question and toggle the option to "show analysis" of the stim. Then, I see if that's enough to help me understand why I missed something or confirm that I at least interpret the stim correctly. Then, I click on the lightbulbs to see the explanation for the answer choices that I chose or were stuck on. This also helps me confirm that I eliminated certain answers for the right reasons!
If that is not enough, I like to watch when I get it wrong or don't understand. But once I confirm I eliminated some answers correctly and for the right reasons, I only watch the explanation of the stim and the answer I chose + the correct answer.
Sometimes I skim the typed out explanation to see if anything is bolded (i.e. important) to takeaway.
I get now why E is correct, but the explanation for B is still not my favorite thing. Strongly focuses on arbitrary assumption that 65 is current speed limit. 75 is in many parts of the country. To me it wasn't as obvious as you're making it seem that the law was already applied was assumed in B. But I guess that's what I'm here to learn
If it helps anyone this is how this clicked for me:
The premise says: increased speed limit ---> lower accident rate
E is correct because it BRIDGES the premise and the conclusion. The lower accident rate is relevant because this is the whole point of why the speed increase is happening to begin with. This wouldn't be applied elsewhere if this wasn't the reason.
Can someone break down why C is wrong in their own language, preferably using lawgic? Thinking I might have to review sufficiency/necessary conditions.
@arieatsoranges I think it's because of the necessary condition (only if). So,
Uniform speed implemented --> roadways have roughly equal average speeds
To me, this reads backwards. We want the outcome to be uniform speeds implemented. (I think, lol idk)
Also, I thought about it without lawgic and to me, the premise doesn't say the average speed IS 75mph. It says that it TENDS to be 75mph. So, that was another reason why I thought C was wrong. Sorry if this is convoluted. I hope it helped somehow!
i dont get it, isnt "any" extreme? what if we could reduce the rate of traffic by some illogical way, like making the law that you cant have pets? should it still be implemented? e feels too broad
@ktacklesthelsat in this kind of question, we get to assume that the principles in the answer choices are valid. so we don't have to like them--we just have to figure out if they help justify the conclusion in the stimulus. choice E is probably a dumb rule, but if valid, it justifies the conclusion, so it's correct. hope that helps!
The conclusion that was reached was to reduce traffic accidents, which is supported by raising the speed limit to 75, which has nothing to do with uniform traffic rules to all roadways; ughhh looked completely over that first sentence...
I accept E as the answer. However, for my enrichment, how does it support the idea that the measures should be implemented universally? Does it lie within its over-inclusiveness? To me, all E says is to implement rules, but universally? Is it an assumption we have to make?
I think I understand what you are asking, but if I misunderstood sorry. Okay so say we have the rule "Any measure that reduces the rate of traffic accidents should be implemented." We could take a look at Nebraska, should we implement it there? Yep. Take a look at Kansas, should we implement it? Yep. Keep going until we have reached every single place that falls within our domain of high speed straight roadways. We will then find that we have attempted to enact that measure universally, i.e. everywhere that falls under our domain. Does that make sense?
@aldertree00644 Where I am confused is that there is an assumption with the application of that rule because we're saying: Roadways are safer if the average speed is adopted as the speed limit for that road. But when I apply the rule (E) to roads in Nebraska maybe I measure the average speed at 70 mph making the 75 mph speed limit too fast. But then I go to Kansas and I measure the average speed at 80 mph. I know the question explicitly says that the national average is 75 mph but does that discount the microcosms of higher/lower average speeds on all roads of the same type?
was having a hard time finding the assumption in this one but realized that that meant I probably already assumed it. that's what led me to E!
There were no gaps in the language anywhere else - everything else seemed straightforward. We of course are programmed to think that we should do anything to reduce accidents, but that is still an assumption.
139 comments
I feel like this is breaking some sort of pattern that was not present in the last two Q's. Got it wrong both times because E seemed too simple, too good to be true type of answer.
got it right immediately in BR after getting it wrong.
doesnt make sense. obviously this is correct but it goes aginst basically everything we've done and applied for the questions
Could have been done that in 20 seconds if I didn’t feel the need to use POE and read every question before hand😭
trusted my gut 😊 LESGOOOOOOOO
28 seconds to spare BOOM
Very surprised when I saw the difficulty level for this question. Got it right with 25 seconds to spare.
Wtf!!
i got every single one right up to this point. fml
@yam Same
Lol. Makes sense.
I always feel so dumb after I hear the explanation lol
do you guys watch the explanations or read them instead? cannot figure which is better?
@Disney I watch if I get wrong or don't understand why I understand the answer. If I know why I got it sometimes I'll skip and sometimes I'll go over the explanation picture to look at the explanation and breakdown in writing forms. If im lost all together I'll look at both.
@JosephTrischitta thank you!
@Disney I like to re-open the question and toggle the option to "show analysis" of the stim. Then, I see if that's enough to help me understand why I missed something or confirm that I at least interpret the stim correctly. Then, I click on the lightbulbs to see the explanation for the answer choices that I chose or were stuck on. This also helps me confirm that I eliminated certain answers for the right reasons!
If that is not enough, I like to watch when I get it wrong or don't understand. But once I confirm I eliminated some answers correctly and for the right reasons, I only watch the explanation of the stim and the answer I chose + the correct answer.
Sometimes I skim the typed out explanation to see if anything is bolded (i.e. important) to takeaway.
Ohh I misread that. I was like "there's no way it's E"
I get now why E is correct, but the explanation for B is still not my favorite thing. Strongly focuses on arbitrary assumption that 65 is current speed limit. 75 is in many parts of the country. To me it wasn't as obvious as you're making it seem that the law was already applied was assumed in B. But I guess that's what I'm here to learn
I was on a role then got the last two wrong :(((((
@EricaFuentes same bruh smh
yayay got it right! Almost fell for B, but E made the most logical sense:)
If it helps anyone this is how this clicked for me:
The premise says: increased speed limit ---> lower accident rate
E is correct because it BRIDGES the premise and the conclusion. The lower accident rate is relevant because this is the whole point of why the speed increase is happening to begin with. This wouldn't be applied elsewhere if this wasn't the reason.
@GabrielleRothstein thanks for this
Can someone break down why C is wrong in their own language, preferably using lawgic? Thinking I might have to review sufficiency/necessary conditions.
@arieatsoranges I think it's because of the necessary condition (only if). So,
Uniform speed implemented --> roadways have roughly equal average speeds
To me, this reads backwards. We want the outcome to be uniform speeds implemented. (I think, lol idk)
Also, I thought about it without lawgic and to me, the premise doesn't say the average speed IS 75mph. It says that it TENDS to be 75mph. So, that was another reason why I thought C was wrong. Sorry if this is convoluted. I hope it helped somehow!
@arieatsoranges Where does the author speak about equal speeds? The heart of the argument is
reduction speed level -> less accidents
so the rule is that implementing a speed limit (or a rule) results in less accidents
therefore, E
i dont get it, isnt "any" extreme? what if we could reduce the rate of traffic by some illogical way, like making the law that you cant have pets? should it still be implemented? e feels too broad
@ktacklesthelsat in this kind of question, we get to assume that the principles in the answer choices are valid. so we don't have to like them--we just have to figure out if they help justify the conclusion in the stimulus. choice E is probably a dumb rule, but if valid, it justifies the conclusion, so it's correct. hope that helps!
The phrase is "beside the point" not besides
ugh changed from E to C, i was contemplating the obviousness with E
Sorta interesting that this a level 4 question but that the 75th percentile is so high (180).
@Bartje I thought that too. Seems like a very weird stat for a reasonably straightforward question
The conclusion that was reached was to reduce traffic accidents, which is supported by raising the speed limit to 75, which has nothing to do with uniform traffic rules to all roadways; ughhh looked completely over that first sentence...
@akashpreetriar This is was the most straight forward explanation. Thank you for this.
I accept E as the answer. However, for my enrichment, how does it support the idea that the measures should be implemented universally? Does it lie within its over-inclusiveness? To me, all E says is to implement rules, but universally? Is it an assumption we have to make?
I think I understand what you are asking, but if I misunderstood sorry. Okay so say we have the rule "Any measure that reduces the rate of traffic accidents should be implemented." We could take a look at Nebraska, should we implement it there? Yep. Take a look at Kansas, should we implement it? Yep. Keep going until we have reached every single place that falls within our domain of high speed straight roadways. We will then find that we have attempted to enact that measure universally, i.e. everywhere that falls under our domain. Does that make sense?
@aldertree00644 Where I am confused is that there is an assumption with the application of that rule because we're saying: Roadways are safer if the average speed is adopted as the speed limit for that road. But when I apply the rule (E) to roads in Nebraska maybe I measure the average speed at 70 mph making the 75 mph speed limit too fast. But then I go to Kansas and I measure the average speed at 80 mph. I know the question explicitly says that the national average is 75 mph but does that discount the microcosms of higher/lower average speeds on all roads of the same type?
was having a hard time finding the assumption in this one but realized that that meant I probably already assumed it. that's what led me to E!
There were no gaps in the language anywhere else - everything else seemed straightforward. We of course are programmed to think that we should do anything to reduce accidents, but that is still an assumption.