I highly suggest those who got this right still watch the explanation video because he explains in detail the verbs at the beginning of the answer choices and how to apply them to the stimulus.
I hope the handwriting could be just a little more legible for future lessons. Trying to grasp new material while also trying to decipher the writings disorients my senses and I feel it's slowing down my comprehension of the material. 😞
#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.
I believe he means that if the answer choice begins with "presumes/assumes that...", then the remaining language must be descriptively accurate. This is because that answer choice uses reasoning already mentioned/provided in the argument BY the author.
In Flaw questions you'll read an argument that contains a reasoning flaw. Your job would be to find an answer that describes that flaw accurately (in-line with stimulus), and is the ACTUAL flaw of the argument.
Weakening Questions you'll be tasked with picking an answer choice that functionally weakens the support structure of the argument.
Think of it this way: for weakening questions, you're looking for the flaw hiding somewhere in the answer choices. For flaw questions, the flaw is already in the stimulus, you just need to be able to pick it out and restate what that flaw is in the answers!
I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"
JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).
What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)
The local resident is only talking about the relationship between small fish in the pond and algae. The resident never brings up a relationship between small fish and large fish which is why A is irrelevant.
D on the other hand talks specifically about the relationship between small fish and algae which is in the right direction.
Flaw questions do not ask you to add information (like maybe something about larger fish) to weaken the argument. Its asking you to describe what is already there that is weak, and there is no mention of larger fish or even a hint about a comparison between small and large fish.
Another way I like to think about it is diagramming out the argument structure.
Premise: algae and dead small fish (corr)
Conclusion: algae -c-> dead small fish (caus)
The whole argument and revolves around algae and dead small fish, and the author's reasoning is concluding causation from a correlation between algae and dead small fish. That's the biggest flaw in the resident's argument. A does not attack this line of reasoning while D does.
I hope this makes sense :)) I used to get caught up in the small details of a stimulus (which are important), but it is more important to understand the stimulus and its reasoning as a whole before delving into smaller details.
@eshakashyap16880 exactly. if the argument said, big and small fish were dying, it wouldn't change the argument. its a change in scope. it isn't getting at the central weakness
In addition to jakekane's comment, the answer says "without justification." In my head, even though it was not a very good justification, the author still did provide some justification for his statement (ie. his personal expirience)
69 comments
LOWEST DIFFICULTY??!! what???
Was looking for someone else with this thought lol.
I got this right, but kinda surprised it was listed as such an easy question. Definitely required some thinking.
Yay! I do not even care that it was a 1 star and 98% of us got it correct. Just happy to be apart of the 98%.
I love when I spend 2 minutes overthinking a 1/5 difficulty question
girl mine was 5 hahha
I'm going to crash out
I highly suggest those who got this right still watch the explanation video because he explains in detail the verbs at the beginning of the answer choices and how to apply them to the stimulus.
@Ave_happ22 you're so right! thanks
i got this one right, but this was not a level one difficulty lol
I cut down 1 star questions with the power of hatred that I've built up within me from failing 5 star questions
I hope the handwriting could be just a little more legible for future lessons. Trying to grasp new material while also trying to decipher the writings disorients my senses and I feel it's slowing down my comprehension of the material. 😞
I second this, there are several lessons where I had to pause just to decipher the handwriting. #feedback it is kind of annoying.
"Look mom, no handles," he says, while riding a quadycle with two different sets of training wheels
this is so funny and accurate LMAOOO
Took me 30 seconds :D
Sees difficulty >:(
thought this would be at LEAST level 2
I knew the answer was D but then I second guessed myself. Then seeing the difficulty drained me LMAO
@JessM same lol
#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.
So on these questions - I immediately cross out anything that brings in new information. (i.e., larger fish)? #help (Added by admin)
i would also like to know the answer to this question #help
I believe he means that if the answer choice begins with "presumes/assumes that...", then the remaining language must be descriptively accurate. This is because that answer choice uses reasoning already mentioned/provided in the argument BY the author.
this is a great answer!
lmao almost everybody got this correct
@TeklaCo I was super stunned.
How could someone do this in 49 secs? I was just perfectly primed for this question with the last two lessons and I still went over 1 min.
i got it right but im still not understanding the difference between flaw and weakening. #help
In Flaw questions you'll read an argument that contains a reasoning flaw. Your job would be to find an answer that describes that flaw accurately (in-line with stimulus), and is the ACTUAL flaw of the argument.
Weakening Questions you'll be tasked with picking an answer choice that functionally weakens the support structure of the argument.
same ugghhh
Think of it this way: for weakening questions, you're looking for the flaw hiding somewhere in the answer choices. For flaw questions, the flaw is already in the stimulus, you just need to be able to pick it out and restate what that flaw is in the answers!
@celinefawaz3255 this is a great way to put it
yay!
A WIN IS A WIN!
I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"
JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).
What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)
Can someone tell me why I'm off? Thanks :)
The local resident is only talking about the relationship between small fish in the pond and algae. The resident never brings up a relationship between small fish and large fish which is why A is irrelevant.
D on the other hand talks specifically about the relationship between small fish and algae which is in the right direction.
Flaw questions do not ask you to add information (like maybe something about larger fish) to weaken the argument. Its asking you to describe what is already there that is weak, and there is no mention of larger fish or even a hint about a comparison between small and large fish.
Another way I like to think about it is diagramming out the argument structure.
Premise: algae and dead small fish (corr)
Conclusion: algae -c-> dead small fish (caus)
The whole argument and revolves around algae and dead small fish, and the author's reasoning is concluding causation from a correlation between algae and dead small fish. That's the biggest flaw in the resident's argument. A does not attack this line of reasoning while D does.
I hope this makes sense :)) I used to get caught up in the small details of a stimulus (which are important), but it is more important to understand the stimulus and its reasoning as a whole before delving into smaller details.
@eshakashyap16880 exactly. if the argument said, big and small fish were dying, it wouldn't change the argument. its a change in scope. it isn't getting at the central weakness
i got it right, took me 6 minutes tho
still a slay
thanks so much! i hope everything is going well with your studies!! Best of luckkk
why is it not A , I get why it is D tho
In addition to jakekane's comment, the answer says "without justification." In my head, even though it was not a very good justification, the author still did provide some justification for his statement (ie. his personal expirience)
Because it is descriptively wrong. Where in the argument does it talk about large fish?
BANGGGG
My first W. I'll take it.