As an early elementary teacher, I loved the 2 + 3 and 2 + mystery analogy. It really helped me connect this way of thinking and learning to what I actually teach my kiddos
@yoshifo That is not what it is saying. It is saying that we need to find the missing premise of "A -> B" to conclude that "A -> C"
So:
Bananas -> Fruits
WE NEED: Apples -> Bananas
TO CONCLUDE: Apples -> Fruits
This is the main difference they are trying to explain between MBT (Must Be True) questions and SA questions. Where we need to find the "WE NEED" portion in SA.
This is gonna be a point of struggle I hate necessary sufficient, I feel like the foundations did a good job introducing them. Not a good enough job helping to drill that as a foundation until it's second nature. I feel like there should be some kinda game that makes you keep identifying whats necessary and what's sufficient and identify contrapositives as fast as possible to nail this down!!
18 comments
I was never good at algebra
@JohnThorn same
as someone who MBT is their worst section, crap
As an early elementary teacher, I loved the 2 + 3 and 2 + mystery analogy. It really helped me connect this way of thinking and learning to what I actually teach my kiddos
@pinkaliciousxlaw Aww. And you're going to law school soon?
Must be true indicates necessity while sufficient assumption indicates sufficiency.
For those that struggle with which group rules to follow, I use the order of the vowels finishing with a No.
Group 1 | Group 2
I for If | O for Only
———————————-
Group 3 | Group 4
U for /Unless | No for /No
@Annette_M_Rivera Wow... thank you!!
So very helpful. I feel as if I am a Jedi in training who can finally start using The Force.
why in the frick wasn't this the first lesson in the module
@emilylu when your platform charges based on time, so you make learning take as long as possible
I'm kind of confused. Why does B -> C and A -> C lead us to A -> B? Isn't that mixing up necessary and sufficient?
For eg:
Bananas -> Fruits
Apples -> Fruits
________________
Apples -> Bananas?
@yoshifo That is not what it is saying. It is saying that we need to find the missing premise of "A -> B" to conclude that "A -> C"
So:
Bananas -> Fruits
WE NEED: Apples -> Bananas
TO CONCLUDE: Apples -> Fruits
This is the main difference they are trying to explain between MBT (Must Be True) questions and SA questions. Where we need to find the "WE NEED" portion in SA.
Let's see if my First Order Logic classes at UC Berkeley will come in handy here.
I actually like this analogy. I was always pretty decent at algebra. Let's see if it helps.
This section really ties all the questions together and why I got some wrong. Rule based ones are no bueno for me.
This is gonna be a point of struggle I hate necessary sufficient, I feel like the foundations did a good job introducing them. Not a good enough job helping to drill that as a foundation until it's second nature. I feel like there should be some kinda game that makes you keep identifying whats necessary and what's sufficient and identify contrapositives as fast as possible to nail this down!!
The math aint mathing