Got it wrong knowing I didn't trust it, Got it right in BR only because I saw the correlation of the word Interest to Importance. D just felt like such strong wording.
C felt like a good bait answer (would be correct if the section had any mention of future generations but they only inferred to it but not explicitly stated it)
...This is a question I'm just kinda skip without understanding the reasoning. Bookmarking it to come back to later when I've developed my skills more.
I'm struggling with believing it's ok to make some assumptions on the past two questions. For this one "change" -- change in previous sections has always been pointed out as vague
Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.
What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.
1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.
2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.
3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.
Answers
D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"
A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.
B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.
C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?
E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.
If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.
175 comments
Yeah... just yeah
Got it wrong knowing I didn't trust it, Got it right in BR only because I saw the correlation of the word Interest to Importance. D just felt like such strong wording.
This one should be a 5
...This is a question I'm just kinda skip without understanding the reasoning. Bookmarking it to come back to later when I've developed my skills more.
30 SECONDS UNDER I'm hype
Listening to the video while working out, bad idea righttr
Nope. Just nope.
got it in BR but i had trouble whittling these ACs down
Can someone explain why D is the correct AC. ChatGPT isn't helping out girl
P: ignorant of interrelationships
P: Shouldn't let indifferent species die
C: We should try to preserve Max # of species
When I got stuck, I ONLY thought of what bridged the gap between the P+C
I got it right but in 5 mins and 39 secs :(
@JR2003 I got it right first try, took me 8 minutes lol.
i thought if it was broad and does not really identify the specific situation it is not correct?
I got it right in the BR... that counts right... :')
@jrm98 a win is a win
Damn! I am on fire! I don't know what it is, but I have been getting the last few questions in this unit right!
what a cunt of a question
what the fck is this question - feels like a sick joke
What's the name of the software that you use to draw on the screen of the question? Also can we use it on test day?
I think it would really help.
@CodyLevant I don't think you can use any additional software like that on test day
Can live with that I got this wrong lol
what. the. fuck.
@ctrue22 Real
I'm struggling with believing it's ok to make some assumptions on the past two questions. For this one "change" -- change in previous sections has always been pointed out as vague
@meepmeep Exactly!!
To better understand the correct answer choice, rewrite in contrapositive
Got it right but at what cost (it took me eleven minutes)
@emmalemon too real
Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.
What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.
1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.
2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.
3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.
Answers
D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"
A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.
B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.
C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?
E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.
If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.
@Backspaced ngl, your explanation was infinitely better than that of the video, thanks for the help.
I feel like there may need to be more instruction on how to deal with creating / understanding abstract rules.