My only issue with this question is: what do you mean he knows very little? Hell for all I know he could only know that the break don't work and nothing else! Also drawn out questions (c I think?) was absurd whether you separate the bike from the breaks would still have the rule applied since the breaks are an item. In addition a bike with no breaks is absolutely defective.
how is knowing little the same as not knowing at all(ignorance)? I get how that was the vulnerability but it was a leap though. Also, what constitute knowing too little about the condition of the bike?
@emmalc02 "defective" is not the issue here. the flaw of the application of the principle is that it states wilton didn't intend to sell harris a malfunctioned bike. he had no idea it was even broken. answer choice E explicitly draws the comparison between KNOWING something is false and NOT BEING SURE it is false. i hope that makes sense! that's just the way i processed it in my head <3
Alright I feel like the lesson questions are insanely easy, I always understand and then in the 'You Try' I get BOMBARDED with these hard questions. Is anyone else having this issue?
I think the fact is that we do not know if it is in the little information though, therefore we can't apply the rules based on something we don't know. The principle states that we need to apply three different conditions to say that he committed fraud, and we can't do that if we do not know.
37 comments
Does anyone have a link to the Professor Dan Epps lecture? It appears it was not hyperlinked in the lesson.
I got this one right, but this is how I feel sometimes with flaw type questions:
definitely would have gotten this one wrong lol
the link to the lecture is missing!
#feedback The link to Prof. Epps's lecture is missing :(
My only issue with this question is: what do you mean he knows very little? Hell for all I know he could only know that the break don't work and nothing else! Also drawn out questions (c I think?) was absurd whether you separate the bike from the breaks would still have the rule applied since the breaks are an item. In addition a bike with no breaks is absolutely defective.
how is knowing little the same as not knowing at all(ignorance)? I get how that was the vulnerability but it was a leap though. Also, what constitute knowing too little about the condition of the bike?
@JosephAmoAppiah being mistaken/wrong is not the same as lying. If you got a math question wrong would you consider you've lied?
this was strung out wayyy too long in my opinion. i feel like i lost concentration on what we were looking for.
Everything made perfect sense until the correct answer showed up, Asserting and this and that ughh too confusing for me
Is the video by Prof Epps gone? :( #help
[This comment was deleted.]
@emmalc02 "defective" is not the issue here. the flaw of the application of the principle is that it states wilton didn't intend to sell harris a malfunctioned bike. he had no idea it was even broken. answer choice E explicitly draws the comparison between KNOWING something is false and NOT BEING SURE it is false. i hope that makes sense! that's just the way i processed it in my head <3
#feedback I really want to see what the priority levels and difficulty levels of the lesson plan videos are, just as we see it for you try.
#feedback. The Dan Epps video is no longer linked
ope
this section is such a rollercoaster lol
omm, this comment is too real. One I get right, the next I get wrong-wash, rinse, repeat.
On the bright side Jimmy - I think the University of American Samoa will gladly take you into their class! Don't fret.
I paused the video and then some other guy started talking freaking me out. Finally I realized there is another video below the main video.
the mini video at the end was so cutesy
Wasn't it? I really enjoyed it.
I'll represent Wilton!
The lecture at the bottom was so interesting! Makes me so excited to learn
Alright I feel like the lesson questions are insanely easy, I always understand and then in the 'You Try' I get BOMBARDED with these hard questions. Is anyone else having this issue?
.
WILTON IS NOTHING BUT A GREEDY FRAUD
anyone else pressing the space bar tp play the video and just confused as hell where the other audio was coming from?
lmao i was annoyed
The "very little" he knew could very well have been that the brakes were defective. Irresponsible for LSAC to leave that window open
I think the fact is that we do not know if it is in the little information though, therefore we can't apply the rules based on something we don't know. The principle states that we need to apply three different conditions to say that he committed fraud, and we can't do that if we do not know.
#feedback Which of the 21 common argument flaws from version 1 does this question fall under?