Got it wrong first because I was split between B and E. After listening to the explanation, I'm looking at this as an argument with a strict explanation; A > B, and why A only affects B. The sufficient A guarantees the necessary B. The prompt asks to search for which answer weakens the argument; therefore, challenge the sufficiency condition; that is, it proposes alternate sufficient condition, which only answer B does. There shouldn't be alternate sufficient conditions if a causation is to hold. Answer E challenges the necessary conditions by proposing alternate assumptions, which is fine. To recap, children's first education due to parent's participation in "first teacher program" causes better than average child performance, but nothing else should cause better than average performance.
I was originally tempted by E, but I figured that correlation is not perfect. So, yes, there can be students who did NOT participate in the program but got good grades, and vice versa. It can be true that some kids do well regardless of their partiicpation in program, but the existence of these outliers does not weaken the overall claim being made here.
I'm so confused where the causal argument/claim is in here? And where is the correlation as well? I don't know why I found this so hard from the lessons standpoint but I did get it right just based off of general understanding of how to weaken the question. #help!
@Isabella! The correlation is "participated in experimental education program" with "performance in school". If you read the breakdown of the question below, the stimulus does not have a causal claim that participation is the reason for this improvement, but the conclusion (that the programs work due to this correlation) is certainly taking it for granted.
"All parents having a background in education" is an alternative explanation that throws doubt on the causal relationship between the program and the scores, and therefore weakens it.
For those who might have been led astray by incorrect answer choices, I think one of the points made in the video is helpful.
The final statement about expanding the program is not the core logic of the argument. The center of the argument is causal (parents teaching students causes better than average school performance).
Also, for those who were questioning the ideal experiment lessons, the purpose is to apply that kind of thinking to these kinds of strengthen/weaken questions. If we can read the stimulus and quickly think of ways to poke holes in the conclusions, these kinds of questions will start to click.
This one was pretty straightforward. I ruled out E because it was obviously an exception to the rule, rather being the rule itself. B was the strongest answer choice. Time was +00:11
Im living in the blind review at this point of my studying path.. I alwayssss choose the wrong answer first and then I'm CONFIDENT that I know the right one, once I know that one is ruled out 😭
@thr107 Although I laughed reading this message because I had this same thought last night. "Is it worthwhile paying this money and getting these wrong?". Trust me it will get better, we only two weeks in there's so much more to approve!
Look at the keywords answer choices e and b are using. E gives us information that is technically true, but it's not relevant! The keyword "some" in e could be any variation from 1 to all. But the keyword "most" in answer choice b significantly weakens the argument by implying that the majority of success isn't coming from the contents of the program, but from the prior educational experience of the parents!
The secret to time: being able to confidently eliminate answers.
I find reading every choice vital since they can be so tricky in offering a tempting answer, but if I can eliminate as I go---I can keep a reasonable time.
That of course is my ideal... 13 secs over this time. Had to re-read the answer because I was nervous about getting it wrong. Should have just answered.
Ok I first said E was the answer, and then in the blind review I said B, but ok it makes sense that the one who weakeness most is B because is saying that the reason why the kids are performing better is because their parents are educators (which is an alternative hypotheses to the conclusion)
and E is just saying some (which could be 1 or all according to previous lessons) children who don't participate in the program did good in school, that is not an alternative hypothesis, it's just extra information
@LauraBolivar i did the same and I think E would be right in the sense of a sufficiency/necessity question type (i might be wrong but thats what im thinking from his explanation).
The main reason I eliminated e without a second of thought was that it didn't really have much to do with the conclusion.
Based on better grades, program should be expanded (paraphrased)
e was something like other students not in program do great as well.
Well... so what? Does that mean the new 'home' program is not effective? Why not still run it even if alternatives also lead lead to great results. (Sort of over analyzing my reasoning which was more immediate, but without watching the video yet, this was it)
I'm very confused about this question. The question asked, if turn, what most weaken's the educators argument? So I chose E first and then A, because it seems that those two answers would least support the argument the educator is trying to make. Did anyone else get the question confused like I did?
@GabrielleFils-Aime the argument that the educator is trying to make is that these programs, the ones who put the child's parents as the childs first educator causes said children in these experimental educational programs to perform better than average in school, i.e higher grades. Answer choice A says that not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents. Even if this is the case we can't assume that for example and I might be reaching, that these children when being taught by their parents don't listen and in turn don't absorb any of the knowledge they're being taught; so they don't perform better than average in school. Just because they don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial in a certain field. So even if these children don't enjoy being taught by their parents they could still perform better in school than those not taught by their parents. For answer choice E my interpretation is that even though some of the children who weren't part of these programs performed exceptionally well in school that has nothing to do with why the program isn't successful. Maybe those kids were super smart, maybe they studied a lot longer than everyone else, just because some people don't participate in one thing and do as well or better than the ones who did doesn't mean that we can say that the program doesn't work. If there are 100 people who got into an accident and all equally injured their legs, 75 went to physical therapy and 25 didn't and then we say that of those 75 people 50 made a recovery in 2 months and 20 of the ones who didn't made the same recovery in 2 months can we really say look, 20 who didn't go to PT made a recovery so therefore PT is useless. What about the 50 who made a recovery? just because someone got the same results without a program or help we can't say that thing is useless.
Sorry for the rambling maybe this confused you more, I hope I helped!
@Calin I appreciate the explanation!! I am still confused though, I'm saying how would answer B be the answer when it most strengthens the educators argument that the programs are succeeding. Even though the question asked what most weakens the educators argument, cause yes, it would be helpful that the program is thriving because the childs' parents were educators previously.
@GabrielleFils-Aime My mistake I understand what you mean now. The reason that answer B is the right answer is because it doesn't strengthen the argument of the educator. The educator's argument is that the program is successful because it teaches children's parents how to be the child's "first teacher" and that's why they do well in school. answer choice B is saying well wait a second if parents have educational experience and have already taught children then the program isn't successful because the program is teaching parents how to teach children it's successful because the parents already know how to teach which would mean that the program has no purpose. It's not the program that's making these children have better scores than the average child, it's the parents with educational experience. So it doesn't strengthen the argument because it's saying that what's making a difference isn't the program it's the children's parents who have experience as educators. I hope I helped!
64 comments
Got it wrong first because I was split between B and E. After listening to the explanation, I'm looking at this as an argument with a strict explanation; A > B, and why A only affects B. The sufficient A guarantees the necessary B. The prompt asks to search for which answer weakens the argument; therefore, challenge the sufficiency condition; that is, it proposes alternate sufficient condition, which only answer B does. There shouldn't be alternate sufficient conditions if a causation is to hold. Answer E challenges the necessary conditions by proposing alternate assumptions, which is fine. To recap, children's first education due to parent's participation in "first teacher program" causes better than average child performance, but nothing else should cause better than average performance.
Wrong the first time, got it right the second!
Got it in 17 seconds first try and again in BR feels great lolll
Bruh...for the life of me I just don't get phenomenon-hypothesis question types even with the whole lesson of causation 😡😡😡
@jaydenca I thought B was wrong automatically because I got caught up on the "should be expanded" part of the conclusion and saw B support that.
I did that so fast..... HELL YES
This made today's lessons all click.
i initially picked E because i forgot that correlation accounts for outliers
@aikol.iva me too and then i read it a second time and re-diagrammed, but tbh "most" threw me off in b
@aikol.iva Same.
I was originally tempted by E, but I figured that correlation is not perfect. So, yes, there can be students who did NOT participate in the program but got good grades, and vice versa. It can be true that some kids do well regardless of their partiicpation in program, but the existence of these outliers does not weaken the overall claim being made here.
I'm so confused where the causal argument/claim is in here? And where is the correlation as well? I don't know why I found this so hard from the lessons standpoint but I did get it right just based off of general understanding of how to weaken the question. #help!
@Isabella! The correlation is "participated in experimental education program" with "performance in school". If you read the breakdown of the question below, the stimulus does not have a causal claim that participation is the reason for this improvement, but the conclusion (that the programs work due to this correlation) is certainly taking it for granted.
"All parents having a background in education" is an alternative explanation that throws doubt on the causal relationship between the program and the scores, and therefore weakens it.
For those who might have been led astray by incorrect answer choices, I think one of the points made in the video is helpful.
The final statement about expanding the program is not the core logic of the argument. The center of the argument is causal (parents teaching students causes better than average school performance).
Also, for those who were questioning the ideal experiment lessons, the purpose is to apply that kind of thinking to these kinds of strengthen/weaken questions. If we can read the stimulus and quickly think of ways to poke holes in the conclusions, these kinds of questions will start to click.
got it correct in 47 seconds lets gooo guys we got this lock in!
This one was pretty straightforward. I ruled out E because it was obviously an exception to the rule, rather being the rule itself. B was the strongest answer choice. Time was +00:11
Im living in the blind review at this point of my studying path.. I alwayssss choose the wrong answer first and then I'm CONFIDENT that I know the right one, once I know that one is ruled out 😭
@StarBrooks You will get better give it time. Stay focused
Here I find that the best thing to do is establish what is the relationship the author is trying to prove and then alternate explanations
correct and 3 seconds under. I. Am. Lit.
I guess I should give up.
@thr107 Never
@thr107 Never dat brother
@thr107 feels like it at times! But then we get a question right and feel okay again (last two I got wrong) and finally got this one right!
@thr107 Although I laughed reading this message because I had this same thought last night. "Is it worthwhile paying this money and getting these wrong?". Trust me it will get better, we only two weeks in there's so much more to approve!
@thr107 you better keep going.
Correct! And only 14 seconds over! Yay!
Quick Note!
Look at the keywords answer choices e and b are using. E gives us information that is technically true, but it's not relevant! The keyword "some" in e could be any variation from 1 to all. But the keyword "most" in answer choice b significantly weakens the argument by implying that the majority of success isn't coming from the contents of the program, but from the prior educational experience of the parents!
The secret to time: being able to confidently eliminate answers.
I find reading every choice vital since they can be so tricky in offering a tempting answer, but if I can eliminate as I go---I can keep a reasonable time.
That of course is my ideal... 13 secs over this time. Had to re-read the answer because I was nervous about getting it wrong. Should have just answered.
I was really thinking that the parents with expériences would strengthen the argument. I do understand better after the explanation.
Correct and only 21 seconds over WAHOO!!!!
Ok I first said E was the answer, and then in the blind review I said B, but ok it makes sense that the one who weakeness most is B because is saying that the reason why the kids are performing better is because their parents are educators (which is an alternative hypotheses to the conclusion)
and E is just saying some (which could be 1 or all according to previous lessons) children who don't participate in the program did good in school, that is not an alternative hypothesis, it's just extra information
right?
@LauraBolivar i did the same and I think E would be right in the sense of a sufficiency/necessity question type (i might be wrong but thats what im thinking from his explanation).
The main reason I eliminated e without a second of thought was that it didn't really have much to do with the conclusion.
Based on better grades, program should be expanded (paraphrased)
e was something like other students not in program do great as well.
Well... so what? Does that mean the new 'home' program is not effective? Why not still run it even if alternatives also lead lead to great results. (Sort of over analyzing my reasoning which was more immediate, but without watching the video yet, this was it)
I'm very confused about this question. The question asked, if turn, what most weaken's the educators argument? So I chose E first and then A, because it seems that those two answers would least support the argument the educator is trying to make. Did anyone else get the question confused like I did?
@GabrielleFils-Aime the argument that the educator is trying to make is that these programs, the ones who put the child's parents as the childs first educator causes said children in these experimental educational programs to perform better than average in school, i.e higher grades. Answer choice A says that not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents. Even if this is the case we can't assume that for example and I might be reaching, that these children when being taught by their parents don't listen and in turn don't absorb any of the knowledge they're being taught; so they don't perform better than average in school. Just because they don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial in a certain field. So even if these children don't enjoy being taught by their parents they could still perform better in school than those not taught by their parents. For answer choice E my interpretation is that even though some of the children who weren't part of these programs performed exceptionally well in school that has nothing to do with why the program isn't successful. Maybe those kids were super smart, maybe they studied a lot longer than everyone else, just because some people don't participate in one thing and do as well or better than the ones who did doesn't mean that we can say that the program doesn't work. If there are 100 people who got into an accident and all equally injured their legs, 75 went to physical therapy and 25 didn't and then we say that of those 75 people 50 made a recovery in 2 months and 20 of the ones who didn't made the same recovery in 2 months can we really say look, 20 who didn't go to PT made a recovery so therefore PT is useless. What about the 50 who made a recovery? just because someone got the same results without a program or help we can't say that thing is useless.
Sorry for the rambling maybe this confused you more, I hope I helped!
@Calin I appreciate the explanation!! I am still confused though, I'm saying how would answer B be the answer when it most strengthens the educators argument that the programs are succeeding. Even though the question asked what most weakens the educators argument, cause yes, it would be helpful that the program is thriving because the childs' parents were educators previously.
@GabrielleFils-Aime My mistake I understand what you mean now. The reason that answer B is the right answer is because it doesn't strengthen the argument of the educator. The educator's argument is that the program is successful because it teaches children's parents how to be the child's "first teacher" and that's why they do well in school. answer choice B is saying well wait a second if parents have educational experience and have already taught children then the program isn't successful because the program is teaching parents how to teach children it's successful because the parents already know how to teach which would mean that the program has no purpose. It's not the program that's making these children have better scores than the average child, it's the parents with educational experience. So it doesn't strengthen the argument because it's saying that what's making a difference isn't the program it's the children's parents who have experience as educators. I hope I helped!
@Calin Ohh I see now!! That makes perfect sense. Thank you so much!!
Last question of the foundations curriculum guys :(
@VanillaCat lol
first try correct and BR correct, i like these causal relationship questions (i loved stats in uni)