If this really confused anyone else, this helped me the third time around I looked at this question. I originally got this wrong by picking A.
The inherent flaw of the argument is that the author mistook water (which is a necessary condition) as a sufficient condition. Necessary does not imply what can make something happen; it is what is needed no matter what. I thought of this in the way we frame SA and NA questions. For NA questions, we look for what is absolutely necessary for the argument to work. In this question, water is necessary for life, but it's not enough for it to make life evolve. I thought of this like growing a plant; yeah they NEED water (a plant can't live without it), but they also need sun.
A is wrong because the author did not have a flawed argument for mistaking what happens with or without water; they're actually right about that. What they're wrong about is how they mistook water as sufficient (or enough) for life to evolve.
Its interesting to me that I find this section the easiest while others find this the hardest. Vice versa I find NA questions the most difficult while some find it incredibly easy.
@Rfpryan Funny... I find this one somewhat difficult, I keep narrowing it down to two answers and picking the wrong one because of some slight grammatical nuance. Whereas for NA I couldn't really figure out 100% why something was right, I just had a feeling it was.
peeps, i took a break from the CC and went to a live class..............reinstated my confidence!!! not sure if y'all are attending the live classes but i am going to be adding them into my study plan. they really do help solidify concepts.
Obviously sufficiency/necessity confusion is an issue here but I still do not understand how answer choice B has the same meaning as the classic sufficiency/necessity confusion. Seems to be a different flaw entirely.
I recognized the oldest mistake in the book and went hunting for the answer... alas, the answer used the causal logic framework which I had NOT thought about. Even worse so, the causal logic answer used "necessary" in it which contributed to my confusion between conditional and causal logic moreeee...... ughhhhhhh
i find myself getting confused by all the ways we can describe the sufficient/necessity flaw, and so I was really confused by the answer choices in this question even though I thought I anticipated correctly :( so I thought of another way to try and remember the relationship for this type of question (forgive me if someone has already said something similar in a previous lesson and I missed it!): Think of the sufficient like a brownie, and water as the necessary. The water is just one ingredient amongst several that work together to create the big picture (the brownie/sufficient condition). So if you have a brownie, you know for a fact that there is water there, but you CANNOT say that if you have water then that means I must be eating a brownie. Because there are other ingredients that could be important for putting together the brownie.
So for these questions, when I find myself anticipating "oh they just switched the conditions, but the answer choices are confusing me in how they describe it!" then it can be helpful to think "ok switching the conditions means they aren't considering how there could be other things (ingredients) NECESSARY for bringing about the same outcome" i.e. a brownie is NOT necessary for the presence of water
I hope this helps, and please correct me if I'm doing something wrong!
WAIT i think this isn't totally accurate of an analogy because in later questions, it seems like a better way of looking at it is if brownies are the sufficient and water is the necessary, then you can't make water the sufficient since there could be other things that require water.
i'm starting to overthink this so if anyone has additional thoughts please lmk lol...
i correctly chose B because i recognized the sufficiency necessary confusion by the author, but i hesitated in blind review because I was worried I was inserting personal bias in my answer choice. when i read the stimulus i thought " well we need more than JUST water to develop life, does it have an atmosphere, does it have sunlight?..." #help i find it hard to tell the difference between my inherent bias/assumptions and asking prompting questions related to holes/flaws in arguments. Thank you!
D doesn't work because the stimulus says "Life as we know it...". This accounts for the possibility that unfamiliar forms of life could've evolved without the presence of water.
Been flopping this entire lesson, flaw questions have always been a weakness for me but I finally locked in with the sufficiency/necessity logic, any tips for the future?
Hmmm it took me a longgg time to answer this. This did not feel like a level 2. I fear Flaw questions are for sure my weakness. I originally got it wrong and then got it correct in Blind Review.
Anyone else originally select the right answer, then second-guess themselves and switch to a different one on these in particular? What is a good way to get rid of these? Most other questions I feel reasonably confident about.
Understanding that the answer is B, the reasoning behind why A is wrong in the video doesn't track. "Could not" and "does not hold" should be the contrapositive of "could" and "does hold." Because the necessary condition in both scenarios are the same. For example, A, as written says "water" (as the necessary condition, just the contrapositive version of it) if water doesn't exist then the evolution of life doesn't exist. The explanation then states that the argument however takes the opposite for granted, if the evolution of life exists, then water exists. Why is this not the same thing? I pretty sure A is the wrong answer because it doesn't constitute a flaw in the argument. And NOT because the argument took for granted the opposite position.
81 comments
Anyone else beginning to realize they do not have a strong grasp on sufficient vs necessary as previously assumed?
me
me
Well at least that's better than the "not knowing what you don't know" phase of learning
also realizing the causal logic is very vague for me :/
i've been looking forward to reading all of the comments after every question. y'all are hilarious.
hey so what the fuck
@Daltjbol this!!!!!!!!
@Daltjbol idk man I am struggling over here too
anyone else feel weird about how attracted J.Y is to these other answers??? stay loyal man
ok that was pretty hard... slightly challenging???
If this really confused anyone else, this helped me the third time around I looked at this question. I originally got this wrong by picking A.
The inherent flaw of the argument is that the author mistook water (which is a necessary condition) as a sufficient condition. Necessary does not imply what can make something happen; it is what is needed no matter what. I thought of this in the way we frame SA and NA questions. For NA questions, we look for what is absolutely necessary for the argument to work. In this question, water is necessary for life, but it's not enough for it to make life evolve. I thought of this like growing a plant; yeah they NEED water (a plant can't live without it), but they also need sun.
A is wrong because the author did not have a flawed argument for mistaking what happens with or without water; they're actually right about that. What they're wrong about is how they mistook water as sufficient (or enough) for life to evolve.
Wow this science journalists needs to be fired immediately. Even Mr. Fat Cat wouldn't make a mistake like this.
Its interesting to me that I find this section the easiest while others find this the hardest. Vice versa I find NA questions the most difficult while some find it incredibly easy.
@Rfpryan Funny... I find this one somewhat difficult, I keep narrowing it down to two answers and picking the wrong one because of some slight grammatical nuance. Whereas for NA I couldn't really figure out 100% why something was right, I just had a feeling it was.
im still struggling to wrap my head around "takes for granted", any tips?
@rjon27 i just read a reddit comment that translated it as 'assumes without warrant...' and that helped me.
peeps, i took a break from the CC and went to a live class..............reinstated my confidence!!! not sure if y'all are attending the live classes but i am going to be adding them into my study plan. they really do help solidify concepts.
Haven’t made it there yet but really glad to hear!
me when i read an answer choice wrong so i get the question wrong
@MPFerrari me always
Obviously sufficiency/necessity confusion is an issue here but I still do not understand how answer choice B has the same meaning as the classic sufficiency/necessity confusion. Seems to be a different flaw entirely.
@battenbarrett same
Changing the answer in BR when you initially had it correct is the worst...
I struggle with second guessing myself too often especially in questions like this
Literally me, I don't know why I struggled so much I knew what was correct :/
sufficiency vs necessity.
I recognized the oldest mistake in the book and went hunting for the answer... alas, the answer used the causal logic framework which I had NOT thought about. Even worse so, the causal logic answer used "necessary" in it which contributed to my confusion between conditional and causal logic moreeee...... ughhhhhhh
i find myself getting confused by all the ways we can describe the sufficient/necessity flaw, and so I was really confused by the answer choices in this question even though I thought I anticipated correctly :( so I thought of another way to try and remember the relationship for this type of question (forgive me if someone has already said something similar in a previous lesson and I missed it!): Think of the sufficient like a brownie, and water as the necessary. The water is just one ingredient amongst several that work together to create the big picture (the brownie/sufficient condition). So if you have a brownie, you know for a fact that there is water there, but you CANNOT say that if you have water then that means I must be eating a brownie. Because there are other ingredients that could be important for putting together the brownie.
So for these questions, when I find myself anticipating "oh they just switched the conditions, but the answer choices are confusing me in how they describe it!" then it can be helpful to think "ok switching the conditions means they aren't considering how there could be other things (ingredients) NECESSARY for bringing about the same outcome" i.e. a brownie is NOT necessary for the presence of water
I hope this helps, and please correct me if I'm doing something wrong!
ya,
Water is necessary if we have lemonade. But lemonade is not necessary if we have water.
If we have lemonade, then we have water. If we don't have water then we don't have lemonade.
WAIT i think this isn't totally accurate of an analogy because in later questions, it seems like a better way of looking at it is if brownies are the sufficient and water is the necessary, then you can't make water the sufficient since there could be other things that require water.
i'm starting to overthink this so if anyone has additional thoughts please lmk lol...
i correctly chose B because i recognized the sufficiency necessary confusion by the author, but i hesitated in blind review because I was worried I was inserting personal bias in my answer choice. when i read the stimulus i thought " well we need more than JUST water to develop life, does it have an atmosphere, does it have sunlight?..." #help i find it hard to tell the difference between my inherent bias/assumptions and asking prompting questions related to holes/flaws in arguments. Thank you!
After getting the last three wrong, I needed this win. AND I got it 11 seconds faster than target lol I'll take it.
If you are struggling I would recommend to focus on accuracy first then timing later
D doesn't work because the stimulus says "Life as we know it...". This accounts for the possibility that unfamiliar forms of life could've evolved without the presence of water.
Do not understand how B is mistaking sufficiency for necessity when its just asking to consider other necessary conditions?
not sure how helpful it is but I responded to someone else's thread with my take on this!
Been flopping this entire lesson, flaw questions have always been a weakness for me but I finally locked in with the sufficiency/necessity logic, any tips for the future?
@3:15
#pause hahaha
chiweewee
Hmmm it took me a longgg time to answer this. This did not feel like a level 2. I fear Flaw questions are for sure my weakness. I originally got it wrong and then got it correct in Blind Review.
Anyone else originally select the right answer, then second-guess themselves and switch to a different one on these in particular? What is a good way to get rid of these? Most other questions I feel reasonably confident about.
Understanding that the answer is B, the reasoning behind why A is wrong in the video doesn't track. "Could not" and "does not hold" should be the contrapositive of "could" and "does hold." Because the necessary condition in both scenarios are the same. For example, A, as written says "water" (as the necessary condition, just the contrapositive version of it) if water doesn't exist then the evolution of life doesn't exist. The explanation then states that the argument however takes the opposite for granted, if the evolution of life exists, then water exists. Why is this not the same thing? I pretty sure A is the wrong answer because it doesn't constitute a flaw in the argument. And NOT because the argument took for granted the opposite position.