i have missed many questions simply because of mis-reading the stem and then looking for the wrong answer. after i re-read the question a BR, the right answer was then clear as day.
for me, it feels like when i would normally choose a certain answer, i have to take it up a layer to find the overarching philosophy or foundation/condition/rule or something in-between those 3. example here is one of the answers was a bait where it was the correct answer but it actually only applied to the one example shown by the essayist so it wouldn't apply to another example.
@Isabella! lowkey c applies even if you take it as a conditional. we could (perhaps sloppily) distill the first premise to the conditional "(lifestyle choices) + (acceptance) --> enjoyable life". while the remainder of the stimulus only applies to the second half of the sufficient condition, notice that in making the premise a conjunctive conditional (where you need BOTH conditions to be satisfied where the "and" appears), we need a rule that can accommodate for both aspects of the sufficient condition. A, B, and E all only pertain to one aspect of the conjunction in the sufficient condition. D could work, but as the explanation says, "deliberately" makes the rule too strong to apply, so the only correct answer is C precisely because in being over-inclusive, it captures both aspects of the sufficient condition
So E is wrong because the conclusion asserts that NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE WITH on the basis that people may find "acceptance" by those who have the same personal beliefs. Answer choice E asserts that IF DOING SO COULD MAKE IT EASIER TO LIVE AN ENJOYABLE LIFE ONE MAY CHOSE FOR ONESELF THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCAITE. This is wrong because this is creating a set that only those with whom we now it would make it easier to live an enjoyable life should be able to chose for one self the people with whom they will associate. BUT THE AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT NO ONEEEEE should be denied the freedom to choose this accounts even for those that potentially may not make it easier for them to live an enjoyable life.
given how insanely granular you have to go to differentiate C, D, and E, I'm not sure how else you could expect this question to get the last difficulty star. This was max difficulty for sure
Seems like adverbs often kill an answer choice. "Deliberately" (in answer choice D) narrows the applicability of the rule and opens up other possibilities that were unaddressed in the stimulus. Once we start specifying HOW something is done, it seems like we often introduce restrictions that the stimulus doesn't contemplate. Just something I've noticed....
I can't stand the philosophical questions. i can get them right and not even fully understand why because tit always feels like the statement just circles in on itself.
Is it valid that I took out option E simply because I didn't like that it was giving me oppositeto what the question stem said? (eg. you should be allowed to choose vs. no one should be denied from choosing).
Personally I feel like this assumption could trip you up down the road in different questions. I think there was a question just a few examples back that sort of went over this question, sorry for not remembering the exact one but it can certainly trip you up. Like for example if option C was irrelevant to the topic, I feel like E would be a close second because it still says the same point in a weaker way (this is what my thought process was, I could be wrong)
123 comments
Got this question right under time and then went back during BR and thought to map out the conditional and ended up getting it wrong. Trust your gut.
i have missed many questions simply because of mis-reading the stem and then looking for the wrong answer. after i re-read the question a BR, the right answer was then clear as day.
for me, it feels like when i would normally choose a certain answer, i have to take it up a layer to find the overarching philosophy or foundation/condition/rule or something in-between those 3. example here is one of the answers was a bait where it was the correct answer but it actually only applied to the one example shown by the essayist so it wouldn't apply to another example.
I didn't take this to be a causal argument! I'm confused because I see the "if then" statement so I treated it as somewhat conditional
@Isabella! lowkey c applies even if you take it as a conditional. we could (perhaps sloppily) distill the first premise to the conditional "(lifestyle choices) + (acceptance) --> enjoyable life". while the remainder of the stimulus only applies to the second half of the sufficient condition, notice that in making the premise a conjunctive conditional (where you need BOTH conditions to be satisfied where the "and" appears), we need a rule that can accommodate for both aspects of the sufficient condition. A, B, and E all only pertain to one aspect of the conjunction in the sufficient condition. D could work, but as the explanation says, "deliberately" makes the rule too strong to apply, so the only correct answer is C precisely because in being over-inclusive, it captures both aspects of the sufficient condition
So is there a strategy here? Kind of feel like we were just thrown into this question type.
@iammichaelscott My trick was to manipulate the paragraph into something way more simple to follow.
If "Able to make lifestyle choices" + "See lifestyle acceptance" -> "Easier to live enjoyably"
Look at the second sentence. Mental note that "Choose friends" can -> "See lifestyle acceptance" to jump into our chain above.
Final sentence. If you are in set "/Choose friends" then it follows you are "Nobody"
Quickly skim the answer choices. Keep it simple in my head grammatically.
If you can't choose your friends, then you are nobody. If you're somebody you can choose.
I know that one of many possible ways to "Easier to live enjoyably" is "Choices" + "Acceptance"
"Choose friends" -> "Acceptance"
A. I do not know what nobody can or can't do. Immediately skip this
B. All I know about anybody is they can choose their friends
C. If assumed, grants us a rule about nobody that connects our conclusion and premises
D. No rules for this conditional.
E. Got no rules about what an action making my life easier potentially allows me to do.
this took me almost 3 minutes but omg... wtf was that
oh my god I keep getting these wrong ahhhh
this one was awful
So E is wrong because the conclusion asserts that NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE WITH on the basis that people may find "acceptance" by those who have the same personal beliefs. Answer choice E asserts that IF DOING SO COULD MAKE IT EASIER TO LIVE AN ENJOYABLE LIFE ONE MAY CHOSE FOR ONESELF THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCAITE. This is wrong because this is creating a set that only those with whom we now it would make it easier to live an enjoyable life should be able to chose for one self the people with whom they will associate. BUT THE AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT NO ONEEEEE should be denied the freedom to choose this accounts even for those that potentially may not make it easier for them to live an enjoyable life.
wow I got this right in 4 mins! I am so slay !
@fafl4507 lol same
No clue how i got this right. i spent 6 minutes trying to convince myself my answer is wrong.
given how insanely granular you have to go to differentiate C, D, and E, I'm not sure how else you could expect this question to get the last difficulty star. This was max difficulty for sure
sat here for 11 minutes just lawgic -ing my way through this one, it is a bit of a beast.
Aww man! I was on a role. I got cocky about getting the last question right! I guess this is karma.
this had me doubting myself for 8 mins
language out here like we in the shakespear days
So in this particular case, looking for a broader answer choice and tying it back to the conclusion (freedom) helps us find the answer.
Seems like adverbs often kill an answer choice. "Deliberately" (in answer choice D) narrows the applicability of the rule and opens up other possibilities that were unaddressed in the stimulus. Once we start specifying HOW something is done, it seems like we often introduce restrictions that the stimulus doesn't contemplate. Just something I've noticed....
these 4 level questions in PSA are no joke
I can't stand the philosophical questions. i can get them right and not even fully understand why because tit always feels like the statement just circles in on itself.
i get these questions right but i dont understand why
@tar x2
Need to remember to think about WHO has membership
I mapped this out as a conditional
choices made in line with beliefs & choices accepted by others --> easier life
i can see how he made it into a casual chain but did anyone else do this ...
@lauretamrizi that's how I chained it. Then got the wrong answer
Is it valid that I took out option E simply because I didn't like that it was giving me oppositeto what the question stem said? (eg. you should be allowed to choose vs. no one should be denied from choosing).
Personally I feel like this assumption could trip you up down the road in different questions. I think there was a question just a few examples back that sort of went over this question, sorry for not remembering the exact one but it can certainly trip you up. Like for example if option C was irrelevant to the topic, I feel like E would be a close second because it still says the same point in a weaker way (this is what my thought process was, I could be wrong)
I am so frustrated.. I've gotten so many in a row wrong. Why am I not learning from my mistakes!!!
@katieghart01 Happens to the best of us!! Slow down, take time, maybe switch up what you're studying and come back to this section. You've got this:)
Doesn't E get sufficiency/necessity confused?
IF choosing for oneself the ppl you hangout with makes life ENJOYABLE --> then you may choose who you are free to hangout with.
Doesn't our chain say IF free to choose -->enjoy? I eliminated E this way.
thats why I didnt choose E too.. but i also mapped it out as a conditional orginally