NA is definitely not my strong suit. Will have to come revisit this lesson.
That being said, when you guys answer a question right and are looking at it in review, when you read the description of the answer that the instructors write out, are you coming to a similar conclusion? I feel like I am usually not thinking the same way as them but arriving at the same answer.
I have missed at least one question or more in the past three drills, all of which were not as difficult as this NA section. However, I got a 5/5 on this NA drill, even after second-guessing most of my answers. Honestly, I'm kind of lost for words, but I think I know what happened. I deemed the past few sections and their respective drills as "easy" prior to doing them, so I went through them too quickly and not carefully enough. Going into this drill, I knew how absurdly hard some NA questions can be, so I treated all the questions equally, not rushing through any of them. The bottom line is that I think I am getting too confident in the other sections because MOST variants are easy. I need to respect every kind of question, like I did these NA questions, and with time become faster at solving them. I was over on time by anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes on the NA drill questions, but that is better than being under and getting them wrong. I suppose the speed will come, but accuracy needs to come first. NA questions have truly humbled me and taught me to be more careful and respectful of every question!
Something I found to help me was first identifying the premises and conclusion. Then, I read the conclusion first and ask myself why that is. I answer this "why?" by reading the premise. Lastly, I add "and..." after the premise and continue to read each answer choice. The correct answer choice will work with the premises in the stimuli to bring about the conclusion.
example:
Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help distract them from the loneliness brought on by their shyness. Sometimes they are able to become friends with others who share their hobby. But if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated. So developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness.
Conclusion: "developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness."
Premise: "if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated."
I would continue as follows:
"all consuming hobbies are not a successful strategy. why? because if they lose interest their loneliness may be exacerbated and..."
Then I would read through the answer choices. In this case the correct answer was:
"No successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness."
all together: "all consuming hobbies are not a successful strategy. why? because if they lose interest their loneliness may be exacerbated and no successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness"
If these premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true, and if you negate this answer choice, the support is not destroyed.
This helped me go from a 2/5 on my initial try to a 5/5 on blind review. I hope someone finds this helpful!
If anyone is curious, I've noticed a subtle answer pattern for NA questions.
Usually, as you read your passage and separate sentences into premises and conclusions, your identified heavy-hitting premise seems to intermingle with your identified conclusion.
The first sentence introduces the concept of disparate cultures, and then our conclusion has the concept of genetic predispositions. Every other detail then just reads as fluff.
I applied this pattern and I got a 4/5 BR from my initial run of 2/5.
I hope this helps anyone who's struggling with NA like I am :,)
So this took me a really long time to get a hold of. 4/5 on the first attempt and 5/5 on Blind Review. To get used to it, the real goal is find the quick negation of all the answer choices, then it becomes more like a weakening question in the sense of needing to find the answer (when negated) that most butchers the argument, its hard to describe but I sat here for hours getting wrong answer after wrong answer and now here I am at the drill with most and then all of them correct. for those of you who are struggling like I am right now, I know we got this, even if my pt score hasn't passed over 150 in nearly 2 months. I'm holding out and hopefully my next pt is a marked improvement.
@AndrewKansky I agree, the negation test is truly a lifesaver. I got 5/5 by doing negation tests; obviously wayyy over time but we'll get there eventually.
@jirehmayers By no means am I an expert, but I think of Necessary assumption as a bridge. So the answer will continue building the bridge, but the moment you negate the answer, boom the links forming the bridge stop going. So when you find an answer that when you negate breaks the logic (the bridge) its going to be the the right one.
Sufficient assumption is like trying to fix a broken bridge, you are trying to choose the answer that mends the missing link in the bridge.
Please keep in mind this seems to be helping me understand this stuff. I am also getting very frustrated with these level 4s and 5s right off rip.
take the Wild flower question, the survival of Wild Flowers depends on reproduction.
Answer to that was D: Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able to reproduce.
You negate it, they don't reproduce, if they don't reproduce the end of the bridge falls apart.
The "Bridge" (In my own words): Wild flowers are going to be extinct so they need to reproduce with Daisy and this reproduction forms Hybrids. Hybrids act as the continuation of the Wild Flower species since their parent "Wild Flowers" are headed for extinction.
If the hybrids reproduce the wild flowers will live on and continue the bridge. If they don't reproduce the end of the Bridge is Broke and Both the Hybrids die and the Wild Flowers die. Making it all fall apart.
232 comments
NA is definitely not my strong suit. Will have to come revisit this lesson.
That being said, when you guys answer a question right and are looking at it in review, when you read the description of the answer that the instructors write out, are you coming to a similar conclusion? I feel like I am usually not thinking the same way as them but arriving at the same answer.
5/5 on the first try THIS IS MY FIRST TIME GETTING 5/5 EVER
3/5 -> 5/5. Horoscopes are so silly.
5/5 and then 4/5 in blind review... WHY DID I DOUBT MYSELFF SJKHJKSFHKJD
I have missed at least one question or more in the past three drills, all of which were not as difficult as this NA section. However, I got a 5/5 on this NA drill, even after second-guessing most of my answers. Honestly, I'm kind of lost for words, but I think I know what happened. I deemed the past few sections and their respective drills as "easy" prior to doing them, so I went through them too quickly and not carefully enough. Going into this drill, I knew how absurdly hard some NA questions can be, so I treated all the questions equally, not rushing through any of them. The bottom line is that I think I am getting too confident in the other sections because MOST variants are easy. I need to respect every kind of question, like I did these NA questions, and with time become faster at solving them. I was over on time by anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes on the NA drill questions, but that is better than being under and getting them wrong. I suppose the speed will come, but accuracy needs to come first. NA questions have truly humbled me and taught me to be more careful and respectful of every question!
1/5, cant stand this since it makes little sense.
0/5 at first then I did a retake and got 4/5. NA is difficult for me and I must review.
i have no idea how i got 5/5
can someone please explain...
@Yonghyeokjin you're the goat thats why
Something I found to help me was first identifying the premises and conclusion. Then, I read the conclusion first and ask myself why that is. I answer this "why?" by reading the premise. Lastly, I add "and..." after the premise and continue to read each answer choice. The correct answer choice will work with the premises in the stimuli to bring about the conclusion.
example:
Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help distract them from the loneliness brought on by their shyness. Sometimes they are able to become friends with others who share their hobby. But if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated. So developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness.
Conclusion: "developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness."
Premise: "if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated."
I would continue as follows:
"all consuming hobbies are not a successful strategy. why? because if they lose interest their loneliness may be exacerbated and..."
Then I would read through the answer choices. In this case the correct answer was:
"No successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness."
all together: "all consuming hobbies are not a successful strategy. why? because if they lose interest their loneliness may be exacerbated and no successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness"
If these premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true, and if you negate this answer choice, the support is not destroyed.
This helped me go from a 2/5 on my initial try to a 5/5 on blind review. I hope someone finds this helpful!
over time, but finally starting to grasp this concept. 4/5 then 5/5 on BR. a win is a win.
this has been beating my ass all week, and i got a 4/5 :) so happy
5/5
If anyone is curious, I've noticed a subtle answer pattern for NA questions.
Usually, as you read your passage and separate sentences into premises and conclusions, your identified heavy-hitting premise seems to intermingle with your identified conclusion.
For example, PT138.S2.Q15
The first sentence introduces the concept of disparate cultures, and then our conclusion has the concept of genetic predispositions. Every other detail then just reads as fluff.
I applied this pattern and I got a 4/5 BR from my initial run of 2/5.
I hope this helps anyone who's struggling with NA like I am :,)
how is it that my previous attempts/practice activities for NA were terrible but in my drills, 3/5 to 4/5 BR shock me?!
4/5 then 5/5 on BR. Somehow did better on this than the entire section.
So this took me a really long time to get a hold of. 4/5 on the first attempt and 5/5 on Blind Review. To get used to it, the real goal is find the quick negation of all the answer choices, then it becomes more like a weakening question in the sense of needing to find the answer (when negated) that most butchers the argument, its hard to describe but I sat here for hours getting wrong answer after wrong answer and now here I am at the drill with most and then all of them correct. for those of you who are struggling like I am right now, I know we got this, even if my pt score hasn't passed over 150 in nearly 2 months. I'm holding out and hopefully my next pt is a marked improvement.
@AndrewKansky I agree, the negation test is truly a lifesaver. I got 5/5 by doing negation tests; obviously wayyy over time but we'll get there eventually.
My first 5/5! Finally, some encouragement on a section that did not reflect that initially!
3/5 the first time and 5/5 the next time. We got this!
The rattlesnake question took me out. Grrr....
3/5 on my first try but 5/5 on my second try!! These are tough...
My first 5/5 !!!
i’m really struggling with NA questions… does anyone have any tips for tackling these questions?
@jirehmayers By no means am I an expert, but I think of Necessary assumption as a bridge. So the answer will continue building the bridge, but the moment you negate the answer, boom the links forming the bridge stop going. So when you find an answer that when you negate breaks the logic (the bridge) its going to be the the right one.
Sufficient assumption is like trying to fix a broken bridge, you are trying to choose the answer that mends the missing link in the bridge.
Please keep in mind this seems to be helping me understand this stuff. I am also getting very frustrated with these level 4s and 5s right off rip.
take the Wild flower question, the survival of Wild Flowers depends on reproduction.
Answer to that was D: Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able to reproduce.
You negate it, they don't reproduce, if they don't reproduce the end of the bridge falls apart.
The "Bridge" (In my own words): Wild flowers are going to be extinct so they need to reproduce with Daisy and this reproduction forms Hybrids. Hybrids act as the continuation of the Wild Flower species since their parent "Wild Flowers" are headed for extinction.
If the hybrids reproduce the wild flowers will live on and continue the bridge. If they don't reproduce the end of the Bridge is Broke and Both the Hybrids die and the Wild Flowers die. Making it all fall apart.
@DouglasSmith thank you for this!
4/5 FA and 5/5 BR... thank goodness. Really, really helpful to negate your answer and see if it makes the argument dissolve.
so strange when i get the hard ones right and the easy ones wrong
i got them all wrong - wow this is a hard area for me