i got it right and my methodology was correct however where i struggled was in my reading not being detailed enough. It didnt stick with me right away that they were talking about OLD train cars and New Trains Cars. Important for meto slow down and read carefully! words matter!
I originally was going to choose E, but the "before the wreck occurred" made me chose A. How do we know that they were aware it was a hazard BEFORE the wreck occurred? #help
Basically, ACME is trying to claim that they are not negligible for the accident because they were entirely ignorant/unaware of the danger hazards of having the switch at knee-level. The commentator is arguing that they are negligible, meaning, that they were in fact aware & not ignorant. Therefore, the excerpt is a premise which provides evidence to the conclusion which refutes Acme's claim that they were ignorant, and therefore, according to the commentator, they are negligible.
In order to have have been unaware of the danger before the wreck occurred, that means ACME would have not known prior to the wreck. Therefore, to argue that they are negligible, you have to argue that they did know it was dangerous before the wreck.
Commentator covers accident which occurred "last week". This means that it has been a week since this wreck and Acme has already been asked about why their new trains have this defect fixed (i.e., new trains already exist at the time commentator covers this accident). Given that Acme's new locomotives were manufactured probably some time prior to the accident (I just can't imagine they became aware of the defect and changed it in their new trains in a week time), Acme should have removed knee-level switches on purpose some time prior to the accident. Why? They knew it was not safe long time prior to the wreck and fixed it.
Long story short: My understanding is that at the time of the accident they had both old (with defect present) and new (with defect fixed) locomotives.
Because we have to take the premises as truth and the truth is that Acme "fixed" the problem before the wreck. So it is heavily implied by the author that Acme could have known before the wreck that there was a problem.
You're right, we actually do not know, and maybe will never know, if Acme was truly aware but the author's evidence implies that we could know.
I didn't want to assume that Acme had switched out the switches before the wreck as it was never said explicitly. I therefore left room for the possibility that it could have been done after the wreck which would mean they didn't know it was a hazard but they do now...ergo why I thought E was wrong and chose A. Can someone explain why that was poor reasoning?
@bbcream I believe it is just the approach to this question that you are taking that makes it a bit more complicated than it has to be. Ignore the strength, ignore the weaknesses, ignore the potential mistakes in the argument. Only evaluate the structure.
After reading through the Stimulus, and then evaluating the Structure of the argument, I can see that the statement given in the Question Stem, "Acme Engines spent $500,000 relocating switches...." is used as Support (Premise) for the Main Conclusion of the Stimulus (The following sentence which states "Thus, Acme should be held liable."). The former sentence gives support to the latter.
So since the conclusion is "Acme SHOULD be held liable"
...wait why? Acme claims earlier that they are "NOT liable..." wait why did they claim that...... "...because it never realized the switches were a safety hazard." Oh okay. So in order to prove liability by these standards, we would need to prove they DID know they were a safety hazard.
So if the conclusion says they SHOULD be held liable, it is likely to mean that the premise is giving support to the idea that they DID know. Because if they DID know, then they ARE liable (in this context. forget outside context when evaluating these questions).
so A states: "Proof that the engineer is not at all responsible..." wait, who was ever arguing the engineer was not AT ALL responsible? That was never a position taken by anybody. Just because one person is argued to be responsible, doesn't mean all responsibility is given up by every other party involved. The argument given by this Commentator could just mean that Acme Engines at least owes that engineer an apology and some flowers.
68 comments
If I ever hear JY's voice in real life, It's gonna sound like he's speaking in slow motion
Oh what the heck, they were on default .8x speed for us?! 😆
Oh so we are all listening to this in 1.7X speed then lol
I wish I could tag other ppl using 7Sage on this comment
it feels like the calm before the storm
After getting absolutely annihilated during SA and NA i feel like i could cry tears of joy rn
sameee
Oh i like these.....Fuhk the NA questions fr
I had the same thought lol.
Same Lol
This is like a reward after SA and NA
"It's like a reward"
"It's LIKE a reward"
After that last section I needed some Ws. So far this seems less.. soul-crushing?
yk what... hell yea... lets not talk about NA for a while (i need to go back and review at some point....I was crashing out)
real
its the calm before flaw questions I just know it
Never back down never WHAT????
NEVER GIVE UP
@abdullahalkhafaji Neva give upppppppp
WE ARE BACK BABY!! bradley cooper voice intensifies
bradley cooper voice intensifies is crazy lolololol
I feel exactly the same way 😂
The comments did not disappoint lol I'm not gonna get too excited about getting this right because I know some BS is on the way.
Never fails. Pick us up, just to drop us like a bad habit.
I am so backkkk
I'm "traumatized" from SA/NA question that I see these as easier but still stressed 😬
@Tombee64 repost
This is time-consuming.
Change your name. It's all about mindset!
on gaawwwd tho.
Slayed. (23s faster than target time too!)
the light at the end of the tunnel
Anyone else really struggle with getting the questions right on time? I will occasionally get them right but I rarely am within the time frame.
I got it right, but felt not confident. Time to watch the video.
i got it right and my methodology was correct however where i struggled was in my reading not being detailed enough. It didnt stick with me right away that they were talking about OLD train cars and New Trains Cars. Important for meto slow down and read carefully! words matter!
I originally was going to choose E, but the "before the wreck occurred" made me chose A. How do we know that they were aware it was a hazard BEFORE the wreck occurred? #help
Basically, ACME is trying to claim that they are not negligible for the accident because they were entirely ignorant/unaware of the danger hazards of having the switch at knee-level. The commentator is arguing that they are negligible, meaning, that they were in fact aware & not ignorant. Therefore, the excerpt is a premise which provides evidence to the conclusion which refutes Acme's claim that they were ignorant, and therefore, according to the commentator, they are negligible.
In order to have have been unaware of the danger before the wreck occurred, that means ACME would have not known prior to the wreck. Therefore, to argue that they are negligible, you have to argue that they did know it was dangerous before the wreck.
Hope this helps!
I chose A as well, thinking E was incorrect because it mentioned they had prior notice.
Commentator covers accident which occurred "last week". This means that it has been a week since this wreck and Acme has already been asked about why their new trains have this defect fixed (i.e., new trains already exist at the time commentator covers this accident). Given that Acme's new locomotives were manufactured probably some time prior to the accident (I just can't imagine they became aware of the defect and changed it in their new trains in a week time), Acme should have removed knee-level switches on purpose some time prior to the accident. Why? They knew it was not safe long time prior to the wreck and fixed it.
Long story short: My understanding is that at the time of the accident they had both old (with defect present) and new (with defect fixed) locomotives.
Hope it helps, sorry for being wordy
Because we have to take the premises as truth and the truth is that Acme "fixed" the problem before the wreck. So it is heavily implied by the author that Acme could have known before the wreck that there was a problem.
You're right, we actually do not know, and maybe will never know, if Acme was truly aware but the author's evidence implies that we could know.
i’m cooked 😀
how’d i get this wrong i feel like an idiot
It took me 3 minutes but I believe I understand how to actually answer the question
This took me 5 whole minutes & finished it to see that it was a level 2 difficulty.... pray 4 me
I feel like this explanation is overcomplicating things. Why are we putting our MSS hats on?
I didn't want to assume that Acme had switched out the switches before the wreck as it was never said explicitly. I therefore left room for the possibility that it could have been done after the wreck which would mean they didn't know it was a hazard but they do now...ergo why I thought E was wrong and chose A. Can someone explain why that was poor reasoning?
@bbcream I believe it is just the approach to this question that you are taking that makes it a bit more complicated than it has to be. Ignore the strength, ignore the weaknesses, ignore the potential mistakes in the argument. Only evaluate the structure.
After reading through the Stimulus, and then evaluating the Structure of the argument, I can see that the statement given in the Question Stem, "Acme Engines spent $500,000 relocating switches...." is used as Support (Premise) for the Main Conclusion of the Stimulus (The following sentence which states "Thus, Acme should be held liable."). The former sentence gives support to the latter.
So since the conclusion is "Acme SHOULD be held liable"
...wait why? Acme claims earlier that they are "NOT liable..." wait why did they claim that...... "...because it never realized the switches were a safety hazard." Oh okay. So in order to prove liability by these standards, we would need to prove they DID know they were a safety hazard.
So if the conclusion says they SHOULD be held liable, it is likely to mean that the premise is giving support to the idea that they DID know. Because if they DID know, then they ARE liable (in this context. forget outside context when evaluating these questions).
so A states: "Proof that the engineer is not at all responsible..." wait, who was ever arguing the engineer was not AT ALL responsible? That was never a position taken by anybody. Just because one person is argued to be responsible, doesn't mean all responsibility is given up by every other party involved. The argument given by this Commentator could just mean that Acme Engines at least owes that engineer an apology and some flowers.
Idk this was my reasoning. Hope this helps!
@SimonArmendariz Thank you! That was super helpful