It is that serious when I say, you are not invited to my birthday party if you are the person posting your time that is under a minute with a smiley face while im out here crying and scratching my skin off my bone. All you are saying is "don't forget about me today"
I understand the purpose of a shallow dip and the need to conserve time, especially in evaluating answers in this type of question. However, so many of the examples of shallow dip analysis suggest that an answer can't alter the order of premises or include a context claim that might appear like a premise until you get to the end. I suppose the mindset here is to allow a potential trap, flag and return if you have enough time, but I'm struggling with accepting that strategy.
@dillons I want to say hes writing out but in highlight form connecting each in the way we would (A->B) but highlighting A with A ad B with B to connect each AC to stimulus.
I keep getting these right (even though a minute over time) because I formulate an abstraction! It really helps - even with the flawed ones. Crazy that this really is about FORM
Got confused by the fact that the lesson on Shallow Dip suggests that "A is typically B" also means "most As are Bs". But I guess the trick here is that to typically be something and to typically have isn't the same? This would be why we can't assume that because X typically has Y then most X have Y? Would love some clarification nevertheless.
I'm by no means good at these at all, but I've found the trick to at least get some of them right is to notice where one concept appears.
So for the stimulus, the conclusion ends with the idea of "high-technology businesses". And in the premises, this concept appears in the second premise, or second sentence.
In C, the concept of antique dealers appears at the end of the conclusion. Similarly, the concept of antique dealers appears in the second premise, at the beginning of the second sentence. It only took me like a minute and 51 seconds to do it, I'm not sure that's always what applies but usually if the conclusion is weird in one, it's weird in the other, even if it doesn't appear in the same place (which it does in this case).
No, the argument given in the stimulus is NOT flawed. The argument says:
healthy economies are correlated with job openings
high tech businesses are correlated with healthy economies
we can chain these premises as follows: high tech businsses --> healthy economies --> job openings
conclusion: someone looking for a job (aka looking for job openings) should move to a city with high tech businesses
this is a valid form of reasoning because, from our causal chain, we see that high tech businesses are connected to job openings
Notice that the conclusion is not "Someone looking for a job is guaranteed to find one if they move to a city with high tech businesses." That would be an overstatement and would be an incorrect conclusion.
@Rena12345 To answer your question more directly, you're correct that A--m-->B--m-> C, therfore A --m-->C, is a flawed form of reasoning. However, I don't think we are supposed to interpret "typically have plenty of job openings" and "tend to have healthy economies" as 'most' statements, but rather as correlations.
#help isn't the second sentence of (A) a correlation? Antique dealers are positively correlated with a specific behavior (authenticating age of antiques they sell)
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.
95 comments
Got it riiiight! So WHAT I was 9 mins over 🤪
20 sec over
It is that serious when I say, you are not invited to my birthday party if you are the person posting your time that is under a minute with a smiley face while im out here crying and scratching my skin off my bone. All you are saying is "don't forget about me today"
00:43 (-01:14)
I was stuck on C and D. But the stem used the "tend to" and that's what made me pick "C".
that took me 21 minutes
I did POE and canceled out all the ones that had "most" in it and got it right lol
I understand the purpose of a shallow dip and the need to conserve time, especially in evaluating answers in this type of question. However, so many of the examples of shallow dip analysis suggest that an answer can't alter the order of premises or include a context claim that might appear like a premise until you get to the end. I suppose the mindset here is to allow a potential trap, flag and return if you have enough time, but I'm struggling with accepting that strategy.
ran it straight down mid looking for AC with should and barely chaining claims didn't even read anything without should.
Highlight method coming in clutch...again and again!
@OmarAbuaita Tried it on this one and you're right! 7 seconds under, too. :)
@OmarAbuaita Can you please explain the method? I don't see the pattern in your approach. I really want to try it this way!
@dillons I want to say hes writing out but in highlight form connecting each in the way we would (A->B) but highlighting A with A ad B with B to connect each AC to stimulus.
I keep getting these right (even though a minute over time) because I formulate an abstraction! It really helps - even with the flawed ones. Crazy that this really is about FORM
This one got me too guys
Got confused by the fact that the lesson on Shallow Dip suggests that "A is typically B" also means "most As are Bs". But I guess the trick here is that to typically be something and to typically have isn't the same? This would be why we can't assume that because X typically has Y then most X have Y? Would love some clarification nevertheless.
this is the easiest out all the topics for me jeez
I hate causal reasoning
I'm by no means good at these at all, but I've found the trick to at least get some of them right is to notice where one concept appears.
So for the stimulus, the conclusion ends with the idea of "high-technology businesses". And in the premises, this concept appears in the second premise, or second sentence.
In C, the concept of antique dealers appears at the end of the conclusion. Similarly, the concept of antique dealers appears in the second premise, at the beginning of the second sentence. It only took me like a minute and 51 seconds to do it, I'm not sure that's always what applies but usually if the conclusion is weird in one, it's weird in the other, even if it doesn't appear in the same place (which it does in this case).
how is this only a difficulty of 4??? it took me 7 minutes to get right lmao
brain died and resurrected halfway through. New brain was not smart enough to recognize B as wrong x-x
tips on doing this w/o diagramming or using lawgic??
for yall tripping about time: its practice rn. build confidence. one layer at a time, timing isnt valuable rn: the concept is!
#help Is this argument flawed since it chains together two correlations to draw a conclusion?
I thought of it as:
A -m-> B -m-> C
––––––
A -m-> C
@Rena12345
No, the argument given in the stimulus is NOT flawed. The argument says:
healthy economies are correlated with job openings
high tech businesses are correlated with healthy economies
we can chain these premises as follows: high tech businsses --> healthy economies --> job openings
conclusion: someone looking for a job (aka looking for job openings) should move to a city with high tech businesses
this is a valid form of reasoning because, from our causal chain, we see that high tech businesses are connected to job openings
Notice that the conclusion is not "Someone looking for a job is guaranteed to find one if they move to a city with high tech businesses." That would be an overstatement and would be an incorrect conclusion.
@Rena12345 To answer your question more directly, you're correct that A--m-->B--m-> C, therfore A --m-->C, is a flawed form of reasoning. However, I don't think we are supposed to interpret "typically have plenty of job openings" and "tend to have healthy economies" as 'most' statements, but rather as correlations.
#help isn't the second sentence of (A) a correlation? Antique dealers are positively correlated with a specific behavior (authenticating age of antiques they sell)
this one took years off my life i fear
@nickiqueenofrap Same, even though I got it right.
i just want to french kiss the shallow dip
its that serious because SHE DOESN'T MISS
@ttagada Agree 100%!
Lollll my brain gave up on this