@Isabella! I think he's just trying to visualize the logic error. If you write three separate lawgic's then they all point towards motive but doesn't link motive as a sufficient factor.
The backwards error just simplifies this into one line.
Recently, I've found that breaking down the passage into logical components helps me understand it better. Although this process is time-consuming, reviewing the answer choices clarifies the flaws ONLY after I visually put everything in order, allowing me to visually identify the jumps on paper.
author concludes that ONLY harsh criticism will cause a person criticized to change
on the basis of:
harsh criticism -> unpleasant criticism -> motive (unpleasant criticism is a guaranteed way of achieving motive)
change -> motive (change requires motive)
Just because harsh criticism is sufficient (ONE of the ways to provide the motive necessary to change), doesn't mean its NECESSARY (being the only, or a REQUIRED way). Hunting for an AC that properly calls out this sufficiency necessity confusion.
A. CORRECT - matches my prediction of what the flaw is.
B. INCORRECT - it doesn't matter what the primary goal of criticism is in other cases. the author is specifically arguing for using harsh criticism over gentle criticism
C. author doesn't assume this
D. author doesn't make this confusion ... no mention or indication of avoidance
E. this isn't the flaw present in this argument. the author uses conditional reasoning as evidence, not refutation
@SMRegalado The thing that is required is necessary. So if X requires Y, that means Y is necessary. It is the thing that is required for X. So if we have X, then it is required that we have Y.
@SMRegalado try to think of it in terms of the basketball example a while back! Being the best basketball player requires you to be able to dribble, therefore: best basketball player --> able to dribble
This stimulus is having an identity crisis. It wants to be a causal and conditional argument at the same time. I managed to get the answer right, but mostly through POE. Is there a way to solve this using strictly causal logic?
Several of the answer choices are descriptively inaccurate, so POE is good just to get those out of the way. The only way to choose between A and C is to understand that the argument is saying that motive only comes from harsh criticism.
@cmhrandall593 If you map it out it would look like
change > motive
harsh criticism > motive
Therefore
change > motive > harsh criticism
Harsh criticism is sufficient for a motive to change but not necessary. The argument's flaw is that it flips the relationship between motive and harsh criticism.
I have written down the two step piecemeal analysis test of the correct answer being descriptively accurate and describing flawed reasoning and geld every answer to that test and it has increased me getting correct answers dramatically with flaw questions. Just looking at it has been a huge help because I am able to mentally apply the test to each answer choice.
I am having the same results! Now I just ask, "Is this descriptively accurate?" and then, "Does this weaken the argument?" It is reliable every time. I look forward to going back to previous sections and seeing if now my understanding has improved even more!
84 comments
Idk why but I read 'change requires a motive' to be motive --> change. Anyone else?
Does anyone understand why he does the backwards arrow towards motive in the video? #confused
@Isabella! I think he's just trying to visualize the logic error. If you write three separate lawgic's then they all point towards motive but doesn't link motive as a sufficient factor.
The backwards error just simplifies this into one line.
This one was easier but 3/5 difficulty, but I have struggled with the ones in the past that were lower difficulty? Am I finally learning?
This actually made sense to me. When it comes to making sense I don't mind watching long vids lol
Recently, I've found that breaking down the passage into logical components helps me understand it better. Although this process is time-consuming, reviewing the answer choices clarifies the flaws ONLY after I visually put everything in order, allowing me to visually identify the jumps on paper.
yayaya got it right!!! :)
negative reinforcement shoutout
Curious when a "takes for granted" AC is the correct answer (if ever)?
author concludes that ONLY harsh criticism will cause a person criticized to change
on the basis of:
harsh criticism -> unpleasant criticism -> motive (unpleasant criticism is a guaranteed way of achieving motive)
change -> motive (change requires motive)
Just because harsh criticism is sufficient (ONE of the ways to provide the motive necessary to change), doesn't mean its NECESSARY (being the only, or a REQUIRED way). Hunting for an AC that properly calls out this sufficiency necessity confusion.
A. CORRECT - matches my prediction of what the flaw is.
B. INCORRECT - it doesn't matter what the primary goal of criticism is in other cases. the author is specifically arguing for using harsh criticism over gentle criticism
C. author doesn't assume this
D. author doesn't make this confusion ... no mention or indication of avoidance
E. this isn't the flaw present in this argument. the author uses conditional reasoning as evidence, not refutation
I came to the correct answer but it is not clear why 'x REQUIRES y' means that x is sufficient. Why is x not sufficient? why not: Motive ---> Change?
@SMRegalado The thing that is required is necessary. So if X requires Y, that means Y is necessary. It is the thing that is required for X. So if we have X, then it is required that we have Y.
@Kevin_Lin ok thank you
@SMRegalado try to think of it in terms of the basketball example a while back! Being the best basketball player requires you to be able to dribble, therefore: best basketball player --> able to dribble
Is "provide" a sufficient condition indicator?
Today is winter tomorrow is summer
ONLY ONLY ONLY
I find the best way to think about sufficiency necessity confusions is to simply write it as.
Enough versus Must/Needed/Required
A: Infers that something that is enough to provide a motive is Required to provide a motive.
Finally getting better at spotting sufficiency necessity confusions correct
Need to stop second guessing myself
Finally stopped second guessing myself and stuck with my initial choice
This stimulus is having an identity crisis. It wants to be a causal and conditional argument at the same time. I managed to get the answer right, but mostly through POE. Is there a way to solve this using strictly causal logic?
Several of the answer choices are descriptively inaccurate, so POE is good just to get those out of the way. The only way to choose between A and C is to understand that the argument is saying that motive only comes from harsh criticism.
@cmhrandall593 If you map it out it would look like
change > motive
harsh criticism > motive
Therefore
change > motive > harsh criticism
Harsh criticism is sufficient for a motive to change but not necessary. The argument's flaw is that it flips the relationship between motive and harsh criticism.
C'est le plus ancien du livre !!!!
mdr
@noellegreaux il me fait sourire a voir du francais ici for real
Would "unpleasant criticism → motive" be the same as "motive ← unpleasant criticism?"
it’d be /motive —> /unpleasant criticism
That's what the argument is confusing
exactly a minute over, but we ball. A was chosen, A was correct
im super good at getting it down to two them marking the right answer then second guessing myself and marking the wrong one
but like fr tho
Drifted towards A automatically but picked C because i didn't understand why I drifted towards A....
le sigh.... we cringe on....
My entire Flaw journey...
cringe on lol, thats a new one
RIP Nautica! iykyk
hi
Im legolas
I have written down the two step piecemeal analysis test of the correct answer being descriptively accurate and describing flawed reasoning and geld every answer to that test and it has increased me getting correct answers dramatically with flaw questions. Just looking at it has been a huge help because I am able to mentally apply the test to each answer choice.
I am having the same results! Now I just ask, "Is this descriptively accurate?" and then, "Does this weaken the argument?" It is reliable every time. I look forward to going back to previous sections and seeing if now my understanding has improved even more!