The agree question got me. While I was reading the question answers during the actual, I forgot I was looking for what they agreed on rather than disagreed on and picked the wrong answer. I caught my mistake immediately on blind review and got the correct answer making me 4 for 4 on blind review. So I have to make sure to remember what the question is actually asking me.
I was hoping you could help me think through a specific point-of-agreement scenario that I haven’t been able to find in the released questions.
Suppose:
Speaker 1: We should do X because it would accomplish goal G.
Speaker 2: We should not do X because it would cause problem H.
Question: Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 would be most likely to agree on:
A. A different proposal that accomplishes G without causing H.
B. Doing X in a modified way that would not cause H.
My confusion is this: For B, Speaker 2 explicitly concludes that they should not do X. If the modification eliminates their stated reason for opposing X, is it reasonable to infer that they would now accept it, or does their position merely become unknown?
For A, can we infer that Speaker 1 would support it because it accomplishes G and that Speaker 2 would support it because it avoids H, even though neither speaker addressed that proposal? Or would one or both speakers’ positions remain unknown because they never discussed the alternative in the stimulus?
Perhaps the specific scenario I outlined would not have a clearly correct answer, but I would appreciate any principles that could help me evaluate choices like these on a difficult question, as well as any other thoughts this scenario raises. Thank you!
@ChanningStorgard Interesting. Are you basing this off of a question that you remember?
My sense is that we don't know what Speaker 2 thinks about A or B. Speaker 2 thinks we shouldn't do X because it would cause problem H. But that doesn't mean if a plan avoids problem H, that it's automatically acceptable.
"If causes problem H, don't do it"
doesn't mean
"If it avoids problem H, then OK to do it"
This is because Speaker 2 might see other problems besides those that relate to H that would constitute reasons against using a modified proposal.
I would also note that it's not clear Speaker 2 believes G is a worthy goal to pursue.
I'm open to the idea that perhaps implicit in Speaker 2's response to Speaker 1, we can assume Speaker 2 thinks G is a worthy goal, but I'd only consider this seriously if I absolutely need to and don't see an answer that is on safer ground.
I vaguely remember seeing a question with a similar structure, although there may have been a subtle wording distinction that I’m forgetting. I remember feeling completely stuck because four choices seemed to represent clear points of disagreement, while the remaining choice concerned something both speakers never addressed.
The idea of something not being addressed is a bit nuanced. I think we often conceive of this as "not mentioned? so no opinion." But that's too simple, as the problem I linked above shows. Consider too that these point at issue questions are more like Most Strongly Supported, not Must Be True. So often the right answer is something that we have the best evidence of a disagreement/agreement. This doesn't mean we can prove with outright certainty that each person must think a certain way about that answer.
I just watched your recorded lesson on advanced causal reasoning from October 2024, and I feel that the lesson may have some carryover to the question I had in mind.
If, for example:
Speaker 1: We should build more housing to increase traffic to the bowling alley. It would improve the local economy.
Speaker 2: Although we should improve the local economy, we should not build more housing. Building enough housing to increase traffic to the bowling alley would require us to build outside of the designated residential area.
What would the speakers most likely agree on?
A. Privately funded advertising that would increase traffic to the bowling alley.
B. Building multistory housing that would increase traffic to the bowling alley while remaining inside the designated residential area.
In your opinion, for this exact scenario, which one do you think they would be more likely to agree on?
My thoughts are:
I feel like both of them would agree with the broader goal A is trying to accomplish, yet we don’t know if one or both may have an unstated objection to privately funded advertising for some reason.
B appears to resolve the stated reason for Speaker 2’s opposition. After watching your advanced causal reasoning video, I began to think that maybe we do have reason to infer that, if the only stated basis for the objection were removed, Speaker 2 might agree. We also know Speaker 1 would likely agree because they wanted housing. However, Speaker 2 explicitly concludes, “We should not build more housing.” Answer choice B also seems to contradict Speaker 2’s premise that building enough housing to increase traffic would require building outside the designated residential area.
Sorry if neither answer is clearly correct; I made this question up. I feel like it captures the general idea of what I’m struggling with regarding where to give priority: to a new, unmentioned idea or to an option that resolves Speaker 2’s original objection.
@ChanningStorgard Ah, this is an interesting nuance. The issue is there's a difference between:
"X happened because of Y."
"We should not do A, because it has consequence B."
In the first, we're talking about a causal event -- one thing did in fact cause some thing else. This supports (though doesn't prove) the idea that if the cause didn't occur, the result wouldn't have occurred. Notice that it doesn't say "X happened partially because of Y." So we interpret the grammar of the statement as indicating Y is the one thing that caused X to happen.
But in the second, the "because" is being used in its "trying to convince you of something" sense. So "it has consequence B" is offered as a reason against doing A. But this doesn't mean that the speaker thinks "it has consequence B" is the only possible objection one can make to A. It's just the one premise that they happen to offer you against doing A. THey might have other reasons against doing A that they just didn't think they needed mention in the argument.
Notice that it would be different if the statement said "The reason we shouldn't do A is because it has consequence B." Here, we're told that B is "the" reason we shouldn't do A. In this case I do think this suggests that if we could somehow do A without having consequence B, then that'd be OK.
Interesting. So, in the more recent hypothetical exactly as I worded it, would you say that answer choice A is more strongly supported than B, even though neither speaker expresses support for or opposition to an advertising program?
By contrast, if Speaker 2 had said, “The reason we should not build more housing is that it would require building outside the designated residential area,” would B then be more strongly supported than A because it removes “the” reason for Speaker 2’s objection, whereas A still requires an additional inference about both speakers’ views on advertising?
@Kevin_Lin Just bumping this once in case my follow-up got buried. I’m still slightly confused and would really value any additional input you might have. Thank you!
@ChanningStorgard Is there any way you can find the question you might be asking about? I ask because it's difficult to rank the answer you're describing in a way that's satisfying.
I got the right answer right away(I pause the video at the end of reading the stimulus and try to answer the question myself before listening to your explanation). However, I think that answer E would have been a more tempting wrong answer for me rather than D because one could ALMOST infer that from what they are saying, whereas I don't think one could infer answer D at all because of the words "anyone that asks" .
Those first two really killed me. I guess it was just a matter of trying to choose something that one of the proponents would disagree with, rather than my own assessment.
21 comments
Loving these videos!!
reading these questions in kevin's voice is highkey helping me go slower and get them correct :]
Great video, this question type looks easy at first glance but is actually quite deceptive
3/4... Q3 was a bit confusing for me but I think I just need to slow down
The agree question got me. While I was reading the question answers during the actual, I forgot I was looking for what they agreed on rather than disagreed on and picked the wrong answer. I caught my mistake immediately on blind review and got the correct answer making me 4 for 4 on blind review. So I have to make sure to remember what the question is actually asking me.
Super helpful video! Didn't think the argeeing question would be the one I struggled with the most.
these videos are so helpful! tysm!!
I was hoping you could help me think through a specific point-of-agreement scenario that I haven’t been able to find in the released questions.
Suppose:
Speaker 1: We should do X because it would accomplish goal G.
Speaker 2: We should not do X because it would cause problem H.
Question: Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 would be most likely to agree on:
A. A different proposal that accomplishes G without causing H.
B. Doing X in a modified way that would not cause H.
My confusion is this: For B, Speaker 2 explicitly concludes that they should not do X. If the modification eliminates their stated reason for opposing X, is it reasonable to infer that they would now accept it, or does their position merely become unknown?
For A, can we infer that Speaker 1 would support it because it accomplishes G and that Speaker 2 would support it because it avoids H, even though neither speaker addressed that proposal? Or would one or both speakers’ positions remain unknown because they never discussed the alternative in the stimulus?
Perhaps the specific scenario I outlined would not have a clearly correct answer, but I would appreciate any principles that could help me evaluate choices like these on a difficult question, as well as any other thoughts this scenario raises. Thank you!
@ChanningStorgard Interesting. Are you basing this off of a question that you remember?
My sense is that we don't know what Speaker 2 thinks about A or B. Speaker 2 thinks we shouldn't do X because it would cause problem H. But that doesn't mean if a plan avoids problem H, that it's automatically acceptable.
"If causes problem H, don't do it"
doesn't mean
"If it avoids problem H, then OK to do it"
This is because Speaker 2 might see other problems besides those that relate to H that would constitute reasons against using a modified proposal.
I would also note that it's not clear Speaker 2 believes G is a worthy goal to pursue.
I'm open to the idea that perhaps implicit in Speaker 2's response to Speaker 1, we can assume Speaker 2 thinks G is a worthy goal, but I'd only consider this seriously if I absolutely need to and don't see an answer that is on safer ground.
@Kevin_Lin
I vaguely remember seeing a question with a similar structure, although there may have been a subtle wording distinction that I’m forgetting. I remember feeling completely stuck because four choices seemed to represent clear points of disagreement, while the remaining choice concerned something both speakers never addressed.
@ChanningStorgard Not sure if this might be the one: https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/question/PT111.S1.Q26
The idea of something not being addressed is a bit nuanced. I think we often conceive of this as "not mentioned? so no opinion." But that's too simple, as the problem I linked above shows. Consider too that these point at issue questions are more like Most Strongly Supported, not Must Be True. So often the right answer is something that we have the best evidence of a disagreement/agreement. This doesn't mean we can prove with outright certainty that each person must think a certain way about that answer.
@Kevin_Lin
Thank you, this helps.
@Kevin_Lin
I just watched your recorded lesson on advanced causal reasoning from October 2024, and I feel that the lesson may have some carryover to the question I had in mind.
If, for example:
Speaker 1: We should build more housing to increase traffic to the bowling alley. It would improve the local economy.
Speaker 2: Although we should improve the local economy, we should not build more housing. Building enough housing to increase traffic to the bowling alley would require us to build outside of the designated residential area.
What would the speakers most likely agree on?
A. Privately funded advertising that would increase traffic to the bowling alley.
B. Building multistory housing that would increase traffic to the bowling alley while remaining inside the designated residential area.
In your opinion, for this exact scenario, which one do you think they would be more likely to agree on?
My thoughts are:
I feel like both of them would agree with the broader goal A is trying to accomplish, yet we don’t know if one or both may have an unstated objection to privately funded advertising for some reason.
B appears to resolve the stated reason for Speaker 2’s opposition. After watching your advanced causal reasoning video, I began to think that maybe we do have reason to infer that, if the only stated basis for the objection were removed, Speaker 2 might agree. We also know Speaker 1 would likely agree because they wanted housing. However, Speaker 2 explicitly concludes, “We should not build more housing.” Answer choice B also seems to contradict Speaker 2’s premise that building enough housing to increase traffic would require building outside the designated residential area.
Sorry if neither answer is clearly correct; I made this question up. I feel like it captures the general idea of what I’m struggling with regarding where to give priority: to a new, unmentioned idea or to an option that resolves Speaker 2’s original objection.
@ChanningStorgard Ah, this is an interesting nuance. The issue is there's a difference between:
"X happened because of Y."
"We should not do A, because it has consequence B."
In the first, we're talking about a causal event -- one thing did in fact cause some thing else. This supports (though doesn't prove) the idea that if the cause didn't occur, the result wouldn't have occurred. Notice that it doesn't say "X happened partially because of Y." So we interpret the grammar of the statement as indicating Y is the one thing that caused X to happen.
But in the second, the "because" is being used in its "trying to convince you of something" sense. So "it has consequence B" is offered as a reason against doing A. But this doesn't mean that the speaker thinks "it has consequence B" is the only possible objection one can make to A. It's just the one premise that they happen to offer you against doing A. THey might have other reasons against doing A that they just didn't think they needed mention in the argument.
Notice that it would be different if the statement said "The reason we shouldn't do A is because it has consequence B." Here, we're told that B is "the" reason we shouldn't do A. In this case I do think this suggests that if we could somehow do A without having consequence B, then that'd be OK.
@Kevin_Lin
Interesting. So, in the more recent hypothetical exactly as I worded it, would you say that answer choice A is more strongly supported than B, even though neither speaker expresses support for or opposition to an advertising program?
By contrast, if Speaker 2 had said, “The reason we should not build more housing is that it would require building outside the designated residential area,” would B then be more strongly supported than A because it removes “the” reason for Speaker 2’s objection, whereas A still requires an additional inference about both speakers’ views on advertising?
@Kevin_Lin Just bumping this once in case my follow-up got buried. I’m still slightly confused and would really value any additional input you might have. Thank you!
@ChanningStorgard Is there any way you can find the question you might be asking about? I ask because it's difficult to rank the answer you're describing in a way that's satisfying.
I got the right answer right away(I pause the video at the end of reading the stimulus and try to answer the question myself before listening to your explanation). However, I think that answer E would have been a more tempting wrong answer for me rather than D because one could ALMOST infer that from what they are saying, whereas I don't think one could infer answer D at all because of the words "anyone that asks" .
How do I access these questions in another tab so I can do the problem with you?
@aswarre3 You can use the drill link in the Summary section to open in another tab: https://7sage.com/drills/build/drlt_031diU2F5AyPxA7I9AJgO8
Those first two really killed me. I guess it was just a matter of trying to choose something that one of the proponents would disagree with, rather than my own assessment.