I'm confused. If the question stem doesn't say to find the "pattern" and be like "the reasoning is most similar to", then the AC could be ordered in a different way than the stimulus did?
I LOVE the second question here. A -> B, assert B, conclude modal possibility A. Not a valid argument in the abstract. Valid once you flesh it out with words and can assume the antecedent isn't self contradictory. Though, I suppose it's not so much a valid conclusion, as it was already possible in any world where B is possible. The task at hand is identifying parallel reasoning, but it's a great example of a form of argument where "might be able to" rescues a failed argument! Just generally, this was an excellent, helpful lesson. It modeled some great ways to quickly simplify the task of grasping the structure of the argument in the stimulus and compare it to 5 answer choices.
@dh2303 of course you are correct, except it is a valid argument in the abstract, merely not a particularly descriptive one. The fact that it includes the qualifier of might does indeed make it logically valid. Or more precisely, not logically invalid.
Wait doesn't either or imply both as an option too? I remember in one previous lesson it said John will enroll in either pol100 or eco100. And then the explanation was that it's possible for John to just enroll in one of those classes but it's also possible for John to enroll in both of them.
@WendyCurrington Right, nothing about "or" precludes the possibility of both options being true. Is there a question where this is relevant? If it's #1, the logic is consistent with the idea that "or" could include both.
Note that "A or B" could still in theory exclude the possibility of both depending on the concepts involved. "You're either dead or alive" doesn't mean you can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Took the drill before the lesson and got 3/5 and still only 3/5 after BR. Decided not to look at the answers and went to the video and watched how Kevin approached the question and answers for the 1st question and then how he approached the prompt for the 2nd question and retook the drill again trying to use the same approach. Got a 5/5 and cut my time down significantly (from 15 minutes to 10) since I was originally mapping every question and most answers, up until I got to a part I felt didn't fit. This is usually a question stem I would skip since I know it takes me a lot of time. Thanks Kevin!!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
15 comments
I'm confused. If the question stem doesn't say to find the "pattern" and be like "the reasoning is most similar to", then the AC could be ordered in a different way than the stimulus did?
@seungyeon2 The order of the statements never matters. What matters is the logic of the argument.
The stim might be ordered: Premise, conclusion
but the correct answer could be ordered: conclusion, premise
It can still be correct as long as the logic is most similar.
I LOVE the second question here. A -> B, assert B, conclude modal possibility A. Not a valid argument in the abstract. Valid once you flesh it out with words and can assume the antecedent isn't self contradictory. Though, I suppose it's not so much a valid conclusion, as it was already possible in any world where B is possible. The task at hand is identifying parallel reasoning, but it's a great example of a form of argument where "might be able to" rescues a failed argument! Just generally, this was an excellent, helpful lesson. It modeled some great ways to quickly simplify the task of grasping the structure of the argument in the stimulus and compare it to 5 answer choices.
@dh2303 of course you are correct, except it is a valid argument in the abstract, merely not a particularly descriptive one. The fact that it includes the qualifier of might does indeed make it logically valid. Or more precisely, not logically invalid.
Is there a way to quickly find the video lessons for the questions covered in this video?
@dnewsome100 You can click into the drill that's linked in the summary above the video: https://7sage.com/drills/build/drlt_031krgxiePYApsG7lALaM6
@Kevin_Lin wow I completely missed that. Thanks!
Wait doesn't either or imply both as an option too? I remember in one previous lesson it said John will enroll in either pol100 or eco100. And then the explanation was that it's possible for John to just enroll in one of those classes but it's also possible for John to enroll in both of them.
@WendyCurrington Right, nothing about "or" precludes the possibility of both options being true. Is there a question where this is relevant? If it's #1, the logic is consistent with the idea that "or" could include both.
Note that "A or B" could still in theory exclude the possibility of both depending on the concepts involved. "You're either dead or alive" doesn't mean you can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Kevin would you be able to to fast track lessons on conditional logic and causation?
@JannnnnnnLam Something's in the works
@Kevin_Lin when it will be released?
@Lidiia Unfortunately it'll probably be at least 2 more weeks. It's going to be something on YouTube.
Super useful! thanks so much Kevin!!
Took the drill before the lesson and got 3/5 and still only 3/5 after BR. Decided not to look at the answers and went to the video and watched how Kevin approached the question and answers for the 1st question and then how he approached the prompt for the 2nd question and retook the drill again trying to use the same approach. Got a 5/5 and cut my time down significantly (from 15 minutes to 10) since I was originally mapping every question and most answers, up until I got to a part I felt didn't fit. This is usually a question stem I would skip since I know it takes me a lot of time. Thanks Kevin!!