Fascinating aside re: the rhetorical vs deductive power of attacking an argument's source. I don't think it is at all unfortunate that the two are out of alignment. The quality of a source is a very useful piece of information, despite not providing a proper inference. Many useful arguments do not achieve logical validity. The entire legal profession is based on argument by analogy, which has no deductive power, unless it is given a circular premise (an analogy only achieves logical validity if it is circular). Decisions must be made based on imperfect, but nonetheless useful and generally effective arguments. Thus, relying on rhetoric that falls short of formal deductive validity is not a flaw, but a practical necessity. If we avoided decisions without such deductive validity, we would have gone extinct long ago.
For (E), can we still identify "undermining" as the conclusion descriptor or at least partly? or would the piecemeal analysis be not much of help anyways? #help
#feedback i wish these later sections (argument part, MoR, etc) had similar formatting as the earlier sections, which have pages that break down common question stems and tips for tackling. these later question types are more mixed in and harder to parse
I feel like all the fake-outs of "pretending" an answer is correct and then revealing it's not is not the best method of teaching and much more confusing than this has to be.
Disagree. . . Thoroughly expressing why an answer is a wrong answer is very important, especially when it could seem like a right answer. The pretending is showing how one could be fooled by an answer choice.
there's a time stamp for each answer... if you already know an answer is wrong you can skip it or choose to view an explanation for why one that was confusing was wrong/hear the explanation for the right answer choice. they don't get paid per video we watch lmao + there's also a x1.4/1.7 speed if you want to speed through the video. the way you approach the curriculum is completely up to you.
I disagree. You're basing your claim on the assumption that 'pretending' an answer choice is right and then revealing it to be wrong is completely economically motivated, but what if that process is to help others who might've chosen that incorrect answer to understand why their internal reasoning was incorrect for the specific answer choice. (A little weaking reasoning for you as well)
Mmh, no he's being as thorough as possible in explaining the ACs...it's to help us understand why the AC is wrong but if it was worded a certain way it would be correct.
So we heard assumptions aren't usually present in arguments when doing NA/SA. Is this just for assumptions from the author/speaker that are absent from the premises? Are assumptions from others/critics present in the context typically? #feedback #help
Piecemeal strategy is splitting the AC into two, to inspect how the premise and the conclusion each operate in the argument.
The AC in MoR questions often separates the premise from the conclusion with the word “by”: in this question’s correct answer;
B) (rebutting an objection) BY (attacking the assumption on which it is said to be based).
The first bracket is describing how the argument’s conclusion works: he is (rebutting the objection) with his conclusion “but this is not so”
The second bracket describes how the premise works: he is (attacking the assumption on which the argument is based) since critics PRESUME that egalitarian societies = bland uniformity
I thought based off a video in the lessons prior that "assumptions" are unstated claims in the stimulus, but JY clearly uses the term assumption is this video for something that is clearly stated by the critics #help
In AP questions, "assumptions" refers to OUR assumptions. Assumptions made by us based on the passage.
But here, "assumptions" refers to the political scientist calling out the CRITIC'S assumptions. The political scientist is basically saying their argument is based on this assumption( a way to weaken the critics argument).
I know this reply is probably way too late for it to be meaningful for you Doug but I thought I'd add my two cents for anyone else seeing this later on;
Method of Reasoning questions are pretty much always asking you to pick the AC that best describes/summarizes the argument/author's position and how they support it.
Basically, pick the AC that describes the argument.
Typo in the reading "Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian society are often wrongly criticized on the grounds that total inequality would necessarily force everyone into a common mold." It's supposed to be total equality. #feedback
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.
46 comments
Fascinating aside re: the rhetorical vs deductive power of attacking an argument's source. I don't think it is at all unfortunate that the two are out of alignment. The quality of a source is a very useful piece of information, despite not providing a proper inference. Many useful arguments do not achieve logical validity. The entire legal profession is based on argument by analogy, which has no deductive power, unless it is given a circular premise (an analogy only achieves logical validity if it is circular). Decisions must be made based on imperfect, but nonetheless useful and generally effective arguments. Thus, relying on rhetoric that falls short of formal deductive validity is not a flaw, but a practical necessity. If we avoided decisions without such deductive validity, we would have gone extinct long ago.
[This comment was deleted.]
@TheSovereign why does it matter chat
@TheSovereign lol would you be similarly offended if the tutor only used male pronouns?
@TheSovereign womp womp cry about it
@TheSovereign so effortlessly insufferable it's impressive
For (E), can we still identify "undermining" as the conclusion descriptor or at least partly? or would the piecemeal analysis be not much of help anyways? #help
anyone else struggling on these? the language of the answers are confusing me since i dont even understand what half the answers are saying
if i got this as my third question on the test, im just hitting end and submit....
@jjellopants why did I find this so funny! This is me with the drills lol
I now accept the fact that I am going to get all of these wrong on the test.
Had to watch this 2 times because I’m hella tired after 2 back to back work trips lol. Solidarity to everyone working full time and studying
no fr im so behind :')
we can do this
Idk how we're going to make it tbh I'm exhausted
Studying for hours after an 8 hour work day is legit the worst
I feel like I can never keep up.......SMH
glad to hear i am not the only one who feels behind when are you taking the exam?
ME TOO ugh
@rmanglani95880 God that’s so true
#feedback i wish these later sections (argument part, MoR, etc) had similar formatting as the earlier sections, which have pages that break down common question stems and tips for tackling. these later question types are more mixed in and harder to parse
I feel like all the fake-outs of "pretending" an answer is correct and then revealing it's not is not the best method of teaching and much more confusing than this has to be.
Disagree. . . Thoroughly expressing why an answer is a wrong answer is very important, especially when it could seem like a right answer. The pretending is showing how one could be fooled by an answer choice.
It's a way to extend the length of each lesson to keep you subscribed for longer, thus resulting in more $$ for these guys.
what's the fake out? Do you mean because he started with A?
someone had to say it lol
there's a time stamp for each answer... if you already know an answer is wrong you can skip it or choose to view an explanation for why one that was confusing was wrong/hear the explanation for the right answer choice. they don't get paid per video we watch lmao + there's also a x1.4/1.7 speed if you want to speed through the video. the way you approach the curriculum is completely up to you.
I disagree. You're basing your claim on the assumption that 'pretending' an answer choice is right and then revealing it to be wrong is completely economically motivated, but what if that process is to help others who might've chosen that incorrect answer to understand why their internal reasoning was incorrect for the specific answer choice. (A little weaking reasoning for you as well)
Mmh, no he's being as thorough as possible in explaining the ACs...it's to help us understand why the AC is wrong but if it was worded a certain way it would be correct.
JY would be proud
So we heard assumptions aren't usually present in arguments when doing NA/SA. Is this just for assumptions from the author/speaker that are absent from the premises? Are assumptions from others/critics present in the context typically? #feedback #help
- i don't get any of this- someone dumb it down for me please
Is there a Strategy for knowing when to use the piecemeal strategy?
just try it for some answer choices, it wont always work, but if you're struggling to break it down, this may help!
What is the piecemeal strategy? I was so confused by this.
Piecemeal strategy is splitting the AC into two, to inspect how the premise and the conclusion each operate in the argument.
The AC in MoR questions often separates the premise from the conclusion with the word “by”: in this question’s correct answer;
B) (rebutting an objection) BY (attacking the assumption on which it is said to be based).
The first bracket is describing how the argument’s conclusion works: he is (rebutting the objection) with his conclusion “but this is not so”
The second bracket describes how the premise works: he is (attacking the assumption on which the argument is based) since critics PRESUME that egalitarian societies = bland uniformity
I thought based off a video in the lessons prior that "assumptions" are unstated claims in the stimulus, but JY clearly uses the term assumption is this video for something that is clearly stated by the critics #help
In AP questions, "assumptions" refers to OUR assumptions. Assumptions made by us based on the passage.
But here, "assumptions" refers to the political scientist calling out the CRITIC'S assumptions. The political scientist is basically saying their argument is based on this assumption( a way to weaken the critics argument).
great explanation - just to add on, we know that the critic makes assumptions because of the word "presume"
whoever wrote this question is a mean person.
I am confused on what the question is asking... "the political scientists argument proceeds by...". what does this mean?
It is asking what the argument is attempting to do
I know this reply is probably way too late for it to be meaningful for you Doug but I thought I'd add my two cents for anyone else seeing this later on;
Method of Reasoning questions are pretty much always asking you to pick the AC that best describes/summarizes the argument/author's position and how they support it.
Basically, pick the AC that describes the argument.
Typo in the reading "Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian society are often wrongly criticized on the grounds that total inequality would necessarily force everyone into a common mold." It's supposed to be total equality. #feedback
Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention! I have now corrected this typo in the lesson.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions or concerns, I am here to help.