I am leaving a reply because it seems no one else has. This has helped me a bit. Normally, I look at formatting, topic, etc. So much more than what I need, and should be looking at.
In an 'if___, then __' statement, would it be correct to say that the sufficient condition is always after the 'if', and necessary is after the 'then'?
@ujustgotlittup most of the time. but, don't get tripped up by "only if" and stuff like that. i'd recommend going back to foundations and learning the 4 different groups of conditional indicators! memorizing them really makes reading and understanding the stimulus and ACs much faster
Silly question but can someone better explain how and why the specific form of reasoning method/flaw matters? I'm just not understanding the explanation here.
@Brie97 Here is how I mapped it out in my head. The tooth brushing example explicitly says "Peter did not brush his teeth". Its claiming something actually occurred (or in this case didn't occur). The sunshine/happiness one leaves the conclusion in a conditional relationship and doesn't claim that the thing in question did/didn't happen. It's "predicting" a future occurrence rather than stating that occurrence actually happened in the real world. Its a really subtle difference but I think that's what they're going for.
To make them 100% parallel it would have to say "Jane is not happy, so it is not a sunny day". Then in both cases it is asserting the conditional relationship actually played out in reality, not that it is just a rule for future events.
I kinda wish all of these introductory lessons for a new question type were given the same consideration in regard to structure. Flaw got 3 videos before the first official question.
43 comments
I can already tell, this section is going to make me angry.
real
@Slippin-Jimmy I hate these questions theyre so time consuming
oh man im scared
Parallel reasoning has always been my Achilles heel. Lets see if we can make some magic happen.
Oh no. I've been dreading this since the beginning. Parallel Flawed Reasoning, my nemesis....... we meet again.
I already know this is going to be hard af
Maaannnnn it feels good to see the words: "You made it! The final frontier" Woot woot... Making progress!
here i go into the lion's den :,)
I am leaving a reply because it seems no one else has. This has helped me a bit. Normally, I look at formatting, topic, etc. So much more than what I need, and should be looking at.
can we get a visual explanation of this in a video?
IMO this is the most difficult question type
In an 'if___, then __' statement, would it be correct to say that the sufficient condition is always after the 'if', and necessary is after the 'then'?
@ujustgotlittup most of the time. but, don't get tripped up by "only if" and stuff like that. i'd recommend going back to foundations and learning the 4 different groups of conditional indicators! memorizing them really makes reading and understanding the stimulus and ACs much faster
I made ittttt
It's so hard to get out of the context of the arguments and get down to the flaw and reasoning method for me :/
Silly question but can someone better explain how and why the specific form of reasoning method/flaw matters? I'm just not understanding the explanation here.
@Brie97 Here is how I mapped it out in my head. The tooth brushing example explicitly says "Peter did not brush his teeth". Its claiming something actually occurred (or in this case didn't occur). The sunshine/happiness one leaves the conclusion in a conditional relationship and doesn't claim that the thing in question did/didn't happen. It's "predicting" a future occurrence rather than stating that occurrence actually happened in the real world. Its a really subtle difference but I think that's what they're going for.
To make them 100% parallel it would have to say "Jane is not happy, so it is not a sunny day". Then in both cases it is asserting the conditional relationship actually played out in reality, not that it is just a rule for future events.
what's PF? parallel flaw?
I wanted a clear description on what this section is?
Similar reasoning of method or similar flawed reasoning method?
Parallel includes both valid and flawed parallel arguments right?
@CaseyLiu Yes, "Parallel" can involve a flawed argument (but most of the time it doesn't). "Parallel Flaw" always involves a flawed argument.
I love this new explanation! I am coming back to review foundations, and I saw this!
Oh, I am cooked on this section.
I kinda wish all of these introductory lessons for a new question type were given the same consideration in regard to structure. Flaw got 3 videos before the first official question.
yeah.. I don't get this.
hate it here already...
These are the ones ive gotten wrong most on my PT's
I'm so afraid right now
About to get steam rolled by this section
If Jane's whole family dies on a sunny day she'll be unbothered. Good for her I guess.