I can see that the correct answer is required to make the conclusion function, but doesn't the 'if' statement make the installation costs of the generators irrelevant? isnt the conclusion just positing that given the generators being functional, they would reduce energy costs and save money? So why would the answer depend on the generators being functional when the conclusion only applies If the generators are already functional? "imagine we are in a hypothetical world where steel plants 'could feed' the heat they produce into the generators. My conclusion is constrained to that world". so why is that dependent on the generators being affordably cheap?
Perhaps the factory must invest a huge amount of capex into maintaining its existing supply of power, for example, it must replace a broken hydroelectric turbine whose cost dwarfs the cost of a new thermovoltaic generator. Therefore the new generator need not pay for itself to save the plant money and the assumption is not necessary :(
I really love how this question uses several heuristics as distractors (in addition to the use of "some" in distractors, you also have "sufficient" in the correct answer to an NA question), but my favorite is how it uses "thereby". There are, in fact, many ways that developing and deploying a novel way to redirect waste energy from heat back to useful energy for manufacturing steel could be profitable overall. If the argument was tweaked so that the economic benefit did not have to specifically result from a reduction in the plant's electrical bills, answer C is no longer necessary, but "thereby" limits the possible scope of the economic benefit. For the argument to be correct, the savings MUST come directly from the reduction in electric bills. That is why C is necessary (and also why C relies on the mechanism of sufficiency to be necessary - the argument is that reducing the bill is sufficient to save money).
I am getting every answer wrong. The negation technique doesn't seem to be working out for me. It seems like I can always come up with a reason why, an AC, would be necessary using negation.
I don't understand how you can see what is necessary in the moment of seeing the question without taking extraordinary amounts of time
@MRod In short, the argument not requiring an answer just doesn't make sense for me. SA questions and weakening questions I seem to be ok with but not sure with NA questions
@VanillaCat We are concluding that they would save money, so to reach this conclusion, we need to confirm that there's nothing PREVENTING us from it. If there are costs working against us saving money, the conclusion (and argument) falls apart. The negation of B is saying, "well, what if the generators can't ALWAYS convert heat into energy?" This doesn't matter as much because we can still reach the conclusion that if it's possible in any way, they will save money. If the heat --> electricity is achievable, they'll save money. In turn, C is saying okay, it's possible, but there's a whole new cost that would prevent us from saving money. At least that is what I thought when I chose C
The way that this is being taught is so confusing. I don't understand why I am getting things wrong. I can easily spot SA answer choices but not NA. There are way too many extra steps that are being taught, destroying my ability to stay on the time frame that is required to finish all the questions. I feel like I'm doing too much and have too many different approaches that just don't work. Can you please make it more focused on what needs to be seen in these questions rather than explain possible hypotheticals.
A was my trap answer! I'm surprised more people didn't fall for it, but C was my runner up in Blind Review. I used to be SO BAD at NA that I would get both attempts incorrect. I slowed down and have been doing about 2-5 questions a day and really taking the time to understand how/why I was wrong. So if you feel hopeless, hang in there! I'm not saying I'm perfect right now but you can only go up from rock bottom :)
The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.
@CMas We have to start with the basics. It would help to lay out your thought process.
Can you explain how you are thinking about this question?
What's the conclusion? Why does the author believe the conclusion must be true? Why is that reasoning flawed (in other words, why might the conclusion be false even if we accept the premises as true)?
This is where you have to start to better understand this question.
I think the key word isn't just "if", it's also "could feed".
If that sentence were to read "So if steel-manufacturing plants fed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators...", then B would be a necessary assumption. In order for the plants to engage in this process in the first place, it would be necessary for the technology to actually exist for this process to happen.
I think the reason I got this wrong and chose B (even though I knew C "also" made sense as an answer) was because I didn't interpret "if...could feed" as meaning "if it was possible", creating a "hypothetical world" where it is possible. I misread it instead as meaning something like "if they bothered to".
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
187 comments
I can see that the correct answer is required to make the conclusion function, but doesn't the 'if' statement make the installation costs of the generators irrelevant? isnt the conclusion just positing that given the generators being functional, they would reduce energy costs and save money? So why would the answer depend on the generators being functional when the conclusion only applies If the generators are already functional? "imagine we are in a hypothetical world where steel plants 'could feed' the heat they produce into the generators. My conclusion is constrained to that world". so why is that dependent on the generators being affordably cheap?
level 5 one after the other again and again is outrageously inconceivable
Lmao I got this love it
WHEN YOU FINALLY ANSWER A LEVEL 5 QUESTION CORRECT EVEN IF YOU WERE 40 SECONDS OVER
@Disney 51 sec over proud
I was between A and C
Perhaps the factory must invest a huge amount of capex into maintaining its existing supply of power, for example, it must replace a broken hydroelectric turbine whose cost dwarfs the cost of a new thermovoltaic generator. Therefore the new generator need not pay for itself to save the plant money and the assumption is not necessary :(
@ShepherdLaughlin Sure, but isn't that {replacing a hydroelectric turbine} out of scope?
The cost benefit NA question - are different lol - failed all 3 so far.
This question and the correct answer makes absolutely no sense to me. It goes against everything I've learned this far.
I really love how this question uses several heuristics as distractors (in addition to the use of "some" in distractors, you also have "sufficient" in the correct answer to an NA question), but my favorite is how it uses "thereby". There are, in fact, many ways that developing and deploying a novel way to redirect waste energy from heat back to useful energy for manufacturing steel could be profitable overall. If the argument was tweaked so that the economic benefit did not have to specifically result from a reduction in the plant's electrical bills, answer C is no longer necessary, but "thereby" limits the possible scope of the economic benefit. For the argument to be correct, the savings MUST come directly from the reduction in electric bills. That is why C is necessary (and also why C relies on the mechanism of sufficiency to be necessary - the argument is that reducing the bill is sufficient to save money).
I am getting every answer wrong. The negation technique doesn't seem to be working out for me. It seems like I can always come up with a reason why, an AC, would be necessary using negation.
I don't understand how you can see what is necessary in the moment of seeing the question without taking extraordinary amounts of time
@MRod In short, the argument not requiring an answer just doesn't make sense for me. SA questions and weakening questions I seem to be ok with but not sure with NA questions
i am the wizard of this question
@VanillaCat We are concluding that they would save money, so to reach this conclusion, we need to confirm that there's nothing PREVENTING us from it. If there are costs working against us saving money, the conclusion (and argument) falls apart. The negation of B is saying, "well, what if the generators can't ALWAYS convert heat into energy?" This doesn't matter as much because we can still reach the conclusion that if it's possible in any way, they will save money. If the heat --> electricity is achievable, they'll save money. In turn, C is saying okay, it's possible, but there's a whole new cost that would prevent us from saving money. At least that is what I thought when I chose C
The way that this is being taught is so confusing. I don't understand why I am getting things wrong. I can easily spot SA answer choices but not NA. There are way too many extra steps that are being taught, destroying my ability to stay on the time frame that is required to finish all the questions. I feel like I'm doing too much and have too many different approaches that just don't work. Can you please make it more focused on what needs to be seen in these questions rather than explain possible hypotheticals.
@BrandonMayer Have you started doing timed PTs and timed drills?
A was my trap answer! I'm surprised more people didn't fall for it, but C was my runner up in Blind Review. I used to be SO BAD at NA that I would get both attempts incorrect. I slowed down and have been doing about 2-5 questions a day and really taking the time to understand how/why I was wrong. So if you feel hopeless, hang in there! I'm not saying I'm perfect right now but you can only go up from rock bottom :)
The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.
@SMRegalado Yes, every "If A, then B" is hypothetical. This statement does not assert that "A" is true.
I have been struggling with this question type... But for the most part I have been getting the Blind review correct.
got this wrong but happy i chose the most attractive wrong answer lol
Please, can someone give me a method that does not involve using negation or "must be true" analysis.
No matter what I do, I cannot prove why something is necessary or why negating something undermines the argument.
I've gotten every single question wrong and I don't understand why an answer is right or wrong.
It honnestly feels more like this is just a "guess and go" question, because there is really no method or strategy for solving this.
#help
@CMas We have to start with the basics. It would help to lay out your thought process.
Can you explain how you are thinking about this question?
What's the conclusion? Why does the author believe the conclusion must be true? Why is that reasoning flawed (in other words, why might the conclusion be false even if we accept the premises as true)?
This is where you have to start to better understand this question.
I think the key word isn't just "if", it's also "could feed".
If that sentence were to read "So if steel-manufacturing plants fed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators...", then B would be a necessary assumption. In order for the plants to engage in this process in the first place, it would be necessary for the technology to actually exist for this process to happen.
I think the reason I got this wrong and chose B (even though I knew C "also" made sense as an answer) was because I didn't interpret "if...could feed" as meaning "if it was possible", creating a "hypothetical world" where it is possible. I misread it instead as meaning something like "if they bothered to".
Wow, I'm starting to get this finally
damn I really thought is was B
Lol I feel strawmanned. Who else didn't just pick B because of seeing "at least some" ?
bruh
how am i suppose to know the assumption would be the cost of purchasing when the passage didn't even talk about that man come on.
i wanna cry