If you haven't done a wrong answer journal, I encourage you to make one ASAP! Helped me avoid falling for the oldest trick in the book after doing it multiple times on previous questions.
@JalenWilson I’ve seen the suggestion to keep a 'wrong answer journal' quite often, but I’m looking for the most effective way to structure one. Should I be documenting every incorrect choice I make, or should I focus specifically on the reasoning behind why those answers were wrong and how to avoid that logic in the future?
@RugensJeanBaptiste The reasoning and what you learned from getting the answer wrong has benefited me the most. It's almost like teaching yourself which makes it helpful
Not sure if I'm actually getting better with assumption questions, or the questions are made easier toward the end that I FEEL like I'm getting better.
JY’s explanation for PT133.S3.Q11 is missing something important.
He says P1 is phenomenon and P2 is explanation of the phenomenon, and, importantly, that it is best to ignore P2 in order to see how the argument functions. This is not the case. Both provide direct support for the argument. Further, recognizing the function of P2 is crucial to understanding why an answer as strong as (B) is still a necessary assumption.
Lets start with evaluating a weaker version of (B). Lets say the relevant subset of people don’t necessarily need to EXCLUSIVELY rely on valid information, but perhaps need to rely on valid information simply more than quackery. If that works with the argument, then (B) is not necessary. Suppose we accept JY’s analysis of the argument, that we can ignore P2. People can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery. So, it is LIKELY (as in > 50%) they will do more harm than good when relying on it. This is a weak argument, but that’s fine. Maybe the hidden assumption is that there is just more quackery out there than valid info? Ok, if that’s the case, does our weaker version of (B) hold up? YES! It does. If, despite the overall balance of articles on the internet, you happened to rely on 9 valid articles and 1 quack article, you would probably be OK, but if we adjust the balance, relying on more quack articles than valid articles would probably be an issue. Now lets integrate P2 into the argument and see how the necessity for EXCLUSIVELY valid info emerges. P2 says that, it’s not just that people can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery, they can’t parse the valid info! It’s too dense, and if they come across it, they can’t apply it. Quackery, on the other hand, is easy to parse (and presumably easier to apply). THAT is why it’s necessary to rely EXCLUSIVELY on scientifically valid information, and why (B) is the right answer. Overall, the argument is (P1) people can't filter out quack content, (P2) people can't parse valid content, (C) relying on this content causes more harm than good, with (NA) unless they exclusively rely on valid content
@dh2303 see this is where my brain just can't process the info. i got this question right because it felt right, but I can't fully wrap my head around why.
So there are premise that are there to just support the rule premise and they don't do much else. Like the second premise here and some that we have seen in the past? Is this an actual thing or am I just connecting dots that don't exist??
@HilarySackor Try adding it is not true in front of the correct answer choice.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT /scientifically valid info-> likely to do more harm than good
Then what is the point of having scientifically valid info? Why is quackery bad? The entire stim falls apart and all the premises are rendered moot.
@meepmeep same here. after I read the stimulus I try and find the gap in my head before I look at the answers. A was the assumption I came up with IN MY HEAD before I even looked at it. Ugh.
154 comments
For some reason I still can't understand why A is wrong
Scary that I can’t remember a time before AI overview 😭
Remember when I said Sufficient Assumption was difficult? Yeah no, Necessary is way worse...
i picked B first then changed to 2 wrong answers....
@yesterdayseeker literally me right now...
f my fing chungus life
bro these question types are wrecking me. It is not clicking at all and I can't get it to click at all!!!!
Took 5 minutes and my soul but I got it right
its because the harm of self-diagnosis comes from non scientifically valid info.
if they use scientific info they good.
if use non scientific info, bad.
yayyy!
audible angry screeches
I had Necessary Assumption PTSD.
nvm
yup. lol.
If you haven't done a wrong answer journal, I encourage you to make one ASAP! Helped me avoid falling for the oldest trick in the book after doing it multiple times on previous questions.
@JalenWilson I’ve seen the suggestion to keep a 'wrong answer journal' quite often, but I’m looking for the most effective way to structure one. Should I be documenting every incorrect choice I make, or should I focus specifically on the reasoning behind why those answers were wrong and how to avoid that logic in the future?
@RugensJeanBaptiste The reasoning and what you learned from getting the answer wrong has benefited me the most. It's almost like teaching yourself which makes it helpful
Ah yes, if it ain't the good ole' OLDEST MISTAKE IN THE BOOK.
Not sure if I'm actually getting better with assumption questions, or the questions are made easier toward the end that I FEEL like I'm getting better.
OHH NOOO, this one got me :( I fell for E and then A
JY’s explanation for PT133.S3.Q11 is missing something important.
He says P1 is phenomenon and P2 is explanation of the phenomenon, and, importantly, that it is best to ignore P2 in order to see how the argument functions. This is not the case. Both provide direct support for the argument. Further, recognizing the function of P2 is crucial to understanding why an answer as strong as (B) is still a necessary assumption.
Lets start with evaluating a weaker version of (B). Lets say the relevant subset of people don’t necessarily need to EXCLUSIVELY rely on valid information, but perhaps need to rely on valid information simply more than quackery. If that works with the argument, then (B) is not necessary. Suppose we accept JY’s analysis of the argument, that we can ignore P2. People can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery. So, it is LIKELY (as in > 50%) they will do more harm than good when relying on it. This is a weak argument, but that’s fine. Maybe the hidden assumption is that there is just more quackery out there than valid info? Ok, if that’s the case, does our weaker version of (B) hold up? YES! It does. If, despite the overall balance of articles on the internet, you happened to rely on 9 valid articles and 1 quack article, you would probably be OK, but if we adjust the balance, relying on more quack articles than valid articles would probably be an issue. Now lets integrate P2 into the argument and see how the necessity for EXCLUSIVELY valid info emerges. P2 says that, it’s not just that people can’t tell the difference between valid info and quackery, they can’t parse the valid info! It’s too dense, and if they come across it, they can’t apply it. Quackery, on the other hand, is easy to parse (and presumably easier to apply). THAT is why it’s necessary to rely EXCLUSIVELY on scientifically valid information, and why (B) is the right answer. Overall, the argument is (P1) people can't filter out quack content, (P2) people can't parse valid content, (C) relying on this content causes more harm than good, with (NA) unless they exclusively rely on valid content
@dh2303 see this is where my brain just can't process the info. i got this question right because it felt right, but I can't fully wrap my head around why.
@dh2303 Thank you for this explanation. I didn’t choose B specifically because of the inclusion of “exclusively”
man i was so sure about A and maybe B and then chose E in BR anyway my goodness that one hurts
@EmeryBeals I thought the exact same thing lol
So I got the 2 star question wrong but I get this one right and with time to spare
So there are premise that are there to just support the rule premise and they don't do much else. Like the second premise here and some that we have seen in the past? Is this an actual thing or am I just connecting dots that don't exist??
The negation technique does not work for me because even if I negate something, I can still explain why the stimulus cannot operate without it.
The issue with using the Negation technique is being able to prove why the stim CAN operate with wrong answer choices, and can't with right answers
Can someone simplify why this is necessary. I feel as though the explanation isn't simplifying this enough.
@HilarySackor Try adding it is not true in front of the correct answer choice.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT /scientifically valid info-> likely to do more harm than good
Then what is the point of having scientifically valid info? Why is quackery bad? The entire stim falls apart and all the premises are rendered moot.
I really fell for A and feel like I would choose that answer choice again still even after explanation :/
@meepmeep same here. after I read the stimulus I try and find the gap in my head before I look at the answers. A was the assumption I came up with IN MY HEAD before I even looked at it. Ugh.
man i gotta read better