@charlenehansen I thought about this too and tried to come up with a few examples. (1) We know that Mary completed the entire project and made no mistakes because she is a responsible manager. OR (2) Since we know Mary is a responsible manager, we can conclude her work on the project is both accurate and complete.
@KatherineDobson Nice! This is right; to validly use the principle while having the concept that someone did act responsibly, "acted responsibly" has to be part of the premise. We can't conclude that someone acted responsibly, but we can start with the fact that someone acted responsibly and conclude something else.
I could be so far off with this - but number 5 threw me because I thought that the answer choice had to follow the conditional logic in the statement. I ruled out C because I thought it was negated but not reversed. Clearly I was wrong in my approach. So this doesn't matter for PSA questions? I'm gonna poo my pants
@TCL What's the conclusion of C? What's the premise?
The argument does have to validly use the conditional. But I think you might just be thinking about the order of the statements and not about what's premise and what's conclusion.
@Kevin_Lin I'm a little confused as to why C is correct and B is not, on this question. To me, C appears to follow the same pattern except for the concession after the word "for". Can you elaborate further or is there a concept that I should dive deeper into to understand why the two choices are not the same?
Would a good way to understand #5 be that the rule is that IF act responsibly THEN reasonable effort - therefore the answer must be either A acts responsibly THUS reasonable effort or the contrapositive A does not put reasonable effort THUS not responsible? And therefore we can quickly eliminate A & B because we need to have the premise and not the conclusion of responsibility?
@IvyX I also got 5 wrong but from my understanding now I believe you are correct. The Answer choice needed to conclude that someone either makes a reasonable effort to make sure something is accurate and complete or that they did not act responsibly. You cannot conclude that someone did act responsibly or did not make a reasonable effort due to that requiring you to reverse the conditional statement in the passage. Hopefully this makes sense.
I've been answering these questions like they're "most strongly supported" hence the low score... Is it fair to just identify premise, then conclusion, and close the gap?
@Lidiia It took me about the same time. I think taking time with the foundations is a better method than rushing through for the practice, as you may give yourself extra practice time, but will be less able to understand the "why" when you delve into process of elimination. Ultimately, everyone will have their own pace that works for them and there is no "right" way other than the way that works for you
For B, I don't really get why it is wrong. The "for" just means "because" right? Wouldn't this be correct since they are explaining why Mary acted responsibly which she did because she made a reasonable effort to make sure what she did is accurate and that the details were complete?
My thoughts on explaining A vs B on 1 (hopefully this makes sense): A is computerized models behave like real world counterparts=theory probably true. This leaves open the possibility that model doesn't behave like real world counterparts=could also be true. But does that matter? No, because we know from the stimulus that they definitely do behave like real world. Versus B is if theory is correct=models behave like real world. This leaves open the possibility that if theory is not correct=models could also behave like real world. Does this matter? Yes, because it means our model behaving like real world doesn't actually prove the theory is true. This is how I think about it (I get hung up on the other possibilities still being on the table, but deciding if they actually matter is useful) so hope it can help someone else.
for question 2, answer choice C, wouldn't it, if true, support as a principle what the bus driver is saying? Like in the scenario that the bus driver does cause an accident due to being guilty of a traffic regulation the bus driver should be reprimanded. isn't that the equal opposite (constrapositive) of the bus driver's scenario, proving that the bus driver should not be reprimanded?
@GojoLebronVegetaBatman It's not a contrapositive.
"If A is true, B is true."
That's a completely separate idea from "If A is not true, B is not true." Neither statement helps the other in any way.
"If A is true B is true." Here is the contrapositive (meaning, another way to express the same idea): "If B is not true, A is not true."
Let's look at a more real-world situation:
"If you cheat, you are a bad person."
If I want to support that statement, does it help to learn "If you don't cheat, you are not bad"? No. Not at all. Learning what happens if someone does not cheat doesn't tell us how we should judge someone who does cheat.
"If food has a lot of cheese, then you shouldn't eat it."
If I want to support that statement, does it help to learn "If a food doesn't have a lot of cheese, then you should eat it"? No. Not in any way. Learning that we should eat food that doesn't have a lot of cheese doesn't tell us what to do if a food does have a lot of cheese.
I have question about last question parallel principle, you elimanited very fast first two, because they not fit in conditional logic if all A are B, its not meaning that all B are A, but I don't see it in this examples...
@Lidiia In Questions A and B, Because and for are premise indicators, so you could rewrite question B into
Premise: Mary first examined the details of his work record and listened to negative reports from some of his supervisors
Conclusion: Mary acted responsibly in firing John
B > A
But because making a reasonable effort to make sure the information is accurate and complete is the necessary condition/superset, it is possible to fullfill this condition without acting responsibly in one's profeesinal capacity.
Wouldn't D be incorrect because the "only when" introduces the necessary condition which would not be our conclusion? Don't we need the necessary clause to be the conclusion ?
23 comments
I hate this question type with a passion
woof, I'm not going to lie. The conditional logic in the last question killed me...man that was a tough one
For Question 5 is it possible to have an AC where they did act responsibly? How would that be worded?
@charlenehansen I thought about this too and tried to come up with a few examples. (1) We know that Mary completed the entire project and made no mistakes because she is a responsible manager. OR (2) Since we know Mary is a responsible manager, we can conclude her work on the project is both accurate and complete.
@KatherineDobson Nice! This is right; to validly use the principle while having the concept that someone did act responsibly, "acted responsibly" has to be part of the premise. We can't conclude that someone acted responsibly, but we can start with the fact that someone acted responsibly and conclude something else.
I could be so far off with this - but number 5 threw me because I thought that the answer choice had to follow the conditional logic in the statement. I ruled out C because I thought it was negated but not reversed. Clearly I was wrong in my approach. So this doesn't matter for PSA questions? I'm gonna poo my pants
@TCL What's the conclusion of C? What's the premise?
The argument does have to validly use the conditional. But I think you might just be thinking about the order of the statements and not about what's premise and what's conclusion.
@Kevin_Lin I'm a little confused as to why C is correct and B is not, on this question. To me, C appears to follow the same pattern except for the concession after the word "for". Can you elaborate further or is there a concept that I should dive deeper into to understand why the two choices are not the same?
Have you worked through the Conditional Logic Module? That’s going to help with the difference between B and C.
Would a good way to understand #5 be that the rule is that IF act responsibly THEN reasonable effort - therefore the answer must be either A acts responsibly THUS reasonable effort or the contrapositive A does not put reasonable effort THUS not responsible? And therefore we can quickly eliminate A & B because we need to have the premise and not the conclusion of responsibility?
@IvyX I also got 5 wrong but from my understanding now I believe you are correct. The Answer choice needed to conclude that someone either makes a reasonable effort to make sure something is accurate and complete or that they did not act responsibly. You cannot conclude that someone did act responsibly or did not make a reasonable effort due to that requiring you to reverse the conditional statement in the passage. Hopefully this makes sense.
I've been answering these questions like they're "most strongly supported" hence the low score... Is it fair to just identify premise, then conclusion, and close the gap?
is it ok that it took me 3 months just to study all curriculum? and then go in to PT practice? or on average people do it faster?
@Lidiia It took me about the same time. I think taking time with the foundations is a better method than rushing through for the practice, as you may give yourself extra practice time, but will be less able to understand the "why" when you delve into process of elimination. Ultimately, everyone will have their own pace that works for them and there is no "right" way other than the way that works for you
For B, I don't really get why it is wrong. The "for" just means "because" right? Wouldn't this be correct since they are explaining why Mary acted responsibly which she did because she made a reasonable effort to make sure what she did is accurate and that the details were complete?
My thoughts on explaining A vs B on 1 (hopefully this makes sense): A is computerized models behave like real world counterparts=theory probably true. This leaves open the possibility that model doesn't behave like real world counterparts=could also be true. But does that matter? No, because we know from the stimulus that they definitely do behave like real world. Versus B is if theory is correct=models behave like real world. This leaves open the possibility that if theory is not correct=models could also behave like real world. Does this matter? Yes, because it means our model behaving like real world doesn't actually prove the theory is true. This is how I think about it (I get hung up on the other possibilities still being on the table, but deciding if they actually matter is useful) so hope it can help someone else.
for question 2, answer choice C, wouldn't it, if true, support as a principle what the bus driver is saying? Like in the scenario that the bus driver does cause an accident due to being guilty of a traffic regulation the bus driver should be reprimanded. isn't that the equal opposite (constrapositive) of the bus driver's scenario, proving that the bus driver should not be reprimanded?
@GojoLebronVegetaBatman It's not a contrapositive.
"If A is true, B is true."
That's a completely separate idea from "If A is not true, B is not true." Neither statement helps the other in any way.
"If A is true B is true." Here is the contrapositive (meaning, another way to express the same idea): "If B is not true, A is not true."
Let's look at a more real-world situation:
"If you cheat, you are a bad person."
If I want to support that statement, does it help to learn "If you don't cheat, you are not bad"? No. Not at all. Learning what happens if someone does not cheat doesn't tell us how we should judge someone who does cheat.
"If food has a lot of cheese, then you shouldn't eat it."
If I want to support that statement, does it help to learn "If a food doesn't have a lot of cheese, then you should eat it"? No. Not in any way. Learning that we should eat food that doesn't have a lot of cheese doesn't tell us what to do if a food does have a lot of cheese.
I have question about last question parallel principle, you elimanited very fast first two, because they not fit in conditional logic if all A are B, its not meaning that all B are A, but I don't see it in this examples...
@Lidiia In Questions A and B, Because and for are premise indicators, so you could rewrite question B into
Premise: Mary first examined the details of his work record and listened to negative reports from some of his supervisors
Conclusion: Mary acted responsibly in firing John
B > A
But because making a reasonable effort to make sure the information is accurate and complete is the necessary condition/superset, it is possible to fullfill this condition without acting responsibly in one's profeesinal capacity.
Wouldn't D be incorrect because the "only when" introduces the necessary condition which would not be our conclusion? Don't we need the necessary clause to be the conclusion ?
@EllieBonnette Are you referring to the bus collision problem? If so, we also have to keep in mind the contrapositive.
Premise: I followed rules
Conclusion Should not reprimand me
We'd look for a principle that establishes "If I followed rules, then don't reprimand."
But "If reprimand, then I must not have followed rules" is another way to express that idea.
So "Reprimand only if I didn't follow rules" could be a correct answer. (D) doesn't say that, but the "only if" doesn't automatically make (D) wrong.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you!!