A negated destroys the argument, and yet its still wrong? I'm sorry, didnt the negation tactic become the gold standard, and now its wrong? wtf are we doing?
I feel like this NA question has been the one that has clicked for me the most. This question requires the assumption that these films from Hollywood still exist in their original form. Stated in the context was the pre-existing condition; for a film to be transferred from nitrate to acetate, it has to exist in its original form (nitrate), so if these old Hollywood films are not in their original conditions (nitrate) than they fail the necessary condition.
I was trying to use the negation test to narrow down between A C and D but I was just confusing myself.
Then I remembered some advice I read on reddit:
"A necessary assumption is something the author must agree with"
so I used that as the test... the author doesn't have to agree with No new technology for transferring old movies from nitrate film to acetate film will ever be developed.
And he doesn't have to agree that Not many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.
But he does have to agree that Some films from the earliest years of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material.
This one was tricky but remember that "many" can also mean "all" and the conclusion was referring to "some". Almost got stung by the trap but evaded by using the NEGATION TEST.
(A) felt too heavy handed in strengthening the argument, then included introducing an extraneous factor (the new technology). It was still compelling but reeked of a trap answer.
(C) gave itself away with the "not many," it was too open for that squirming argument.
(D) I negated "Some" and that was it.
Definitely felt like this module was hopelessly handing me my whole ass. 23 seconds over so I still got a ways to go, but it feels so nice to see improvement! Chin up guys!
@TeklaCo I sorta do it by pretending there's a reporter or debate opponent saying the negation. Like saying "Sir, there's a NEW technology allowing the transfering process", and seeing if the original argument stands. Still testing out the method, but if it works for you, boss, keep 'er going
Got this right on negation. If no films from the earliest year of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material, which if true colllapses the argument. If no early years of Hollywood films exsist in their original material that is unstable and deteriorating nitrate film, then the conclusion does not apply since there is NO films to even have to preserve.
A tip that helped me eliminate A right away is that it doesn't even specifically state that the new technology would be more inexpensive, or efficient. Thus, I reasoned that assuming a new technology was developed, it could just be that this new technology, say, developed a less foul scent for nitrate or Acetate. The new technology might still be expensive, time consuming, etc., making it not necessary at all.
Got it right first time based on working through it in my head but it was between C and D. Blind review I tried to the negate test which had me choosing C. Doing negate test with C, I thought that if many films from earliest Hollywood years had already been transferred to acetate, that would make the premise about not being able to transfer all of them before they deteriorated less relevant.
The explanation for AC C makes no sense to me. This is how I interpret it: To negate “not many x have been transferred to y” would be to remove the not, so it would be “many x have been transferred to y”, but since “many” is logically soft, we treat it like a some relationship. SO, SOME films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.
Why does JY's explanation say that "it’s good that there (C) guarantees a “most” intersection." huh??
@saulgoodman13 The reason I got rid of C is becasue if the number of films that have been transfered is large or small, it dosen't matter. Because we're talking about ALL those that have yet to be transfered.
As for J.Y, if you can explain why something is wrong in your own terms, don't listen to him. He'll over complicate things
119 comments
A negated destroys the argument, and yet its still wrong? I'm sorry, didnt the negation tactic become the gold standard, and now its wrong? wtf are we doing?
I feel like this NA question has been the one that has clicked for me the most. This question requires the assumption that these films from Hollywood still exist in their original form. Stated in the context was the pre-existing condition; for a film to be transferred from nitrate to acetate, it has to exist in its original form (nitrate), so if these old Hollywood films are not in their original conditions (nitrate) than they fail the necessary condition.
FIRST TRY
feeling encouraged by the fact that i feel dumb during br and review (hopefully can transfer more to execution)
got it right in 30 secs!!
ADVICE!!!:
I was trying to use the negation test to narrow down between A C and D but I was just confusing myself.
Then I remembered some advice I read on reddit:
"A necessary assumption is something the author must agree with"
so I used that as the test... the author doesn't have to agree with No new technology for transferring old movies from nitrate film to acetate film will ever be developed.
And he doesn't have to agree that Not many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.
But he does have to agree that Some films from the earliest years of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material.
@MJ Oh my gosh youre a lifesaver for this advice
This one was tricky but remember that "many" can also mean "all" and the conclusion was referring to "some". Almost got stung by the trap but evaded by using the NEGATION TEST.
It helps to know a little bit about film preservation from the silent film era here
chat I locked in im cooking
I don't understand any of these questions at all.
right now there is nothing I hate more than NA questions...
It's starting to click🥲
(A) felt too heavy handed in strengthening the argument, then included introducing an extraneous factor (the new technology). It was still compelling but reeked of a trap answer.
(C) gave itself away with the "not many," it was too open for that squirming argument.
(D) I negated "Some" and that was it.
Definitely felt like this module was hopelessly handing me my whole ass. 23 seconds over so I still got a ways to go, but it feels so nice to see improvement! Chin up guys!
how do you negate some? it is no films from the earliest Hollywood?....
@TeklaCo You can frontload "it's not the case that some films..." or simply say "some films...DO NOT exist solely..."
@TeklaCo I sorta do it by pretending there's a reporter or debate opponent saying the negation. Like saying "Sir, there's a NEW technology allowing the transfering process", and seeing if the original argument stands. Still testing out the method, but if it works for you, boss, keep 'er going
I feel like I am going in circles
6 seconds under the time. Yay!
YAYAYA I GOT IT RIGHT!! :)
Got this right on negation. If no films from the earliest year of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material, which if true colllapses the argument. If no early years of Hollywood films exsist in their original material that is unstable and deteriorating nitrate film, then the conclusion does not apply since there is NO films to even have to preserve.
I chose D and then I said fuck C looks promising gg
A tip that helped me eliminate A right away is that it doesn't even specifically state that the new technology would be more inexpensive, or efficient. Thus, I reasoned that assuming a new technology was developed, it could just be that this new technology, say, developed a less foul scent for nitrate or Acetate. The new technology might still be expensive, time consuming, etc., making it not necessary at all.
FUCK
lol literally fell for both A & C
so basically....we question how those hollywood films were thrown in there? and D binds the conclusion to the premise/rest of the context? -_-
Got it right first time based on working through it in my head but it was between C and D. Blind review I tried to the negate test which had me choosing C. Doing negate test with C, I thought that if many films from earliest Hollywood years had already been transferred to acetate, that would make the premise about not being able to transfer all of them before they deteriorated less relevant.
As a film studies student, I said to myself when I saw the stimulus: "If you can't get this right, drop out."
@Faye well did u drop out?
The explanation for AC C makes no sense to me. This is how I interpret it: To negate “not many x have been transferred to y” would be to remove the not, so it would be “many x have been transferred to y”, but since “many” is logically soft, we treat it like a some relationship. SO, SOME films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.
Why does JY's explanation say that "it’s good that there (C) guarantees a “most” intersection." huh??
#help #helpme #welp
@saulgoodman13 The reason I got rid of C is becasue if the number of films that have been transfered is large or small, it dosen't matter. Because we're talking about ALL those that have yet to be transfered.
As for J.Y, if you can explain why something is wrong in your own terms, don't listen to him. He'll over complicate things