Self-study
Would someone be able to provide me with some of the nuances and strategies needed when tackling link assumption questions. I seem to uniquely struggle with them on my tests and cannot find specific resources for how to approach them. I figure some sort of my mindset is incorrect but I have yet to be able to figure out what. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
4
8 comments
if premise than conclusion. Also the answer is sometimes so simple it doesn't seem right. So understanding argument types helps
I'd diagram things out! For conditionals, diagram as normal but know where you can split the arrow (for and/ors), and for causal reasoning, Cause: _A_ --> Effect: _B_ which might lead to another Cause: _B_ --> Effect: _C_... etc.
I found that what helped the most is to do the SA section in the core and then go back to foundations and redo conditional and casual logic
^^ same! I have been searching through the core curriculum again, but am looking for something that will help me start to break through on these questions
@saltysky! This is for you and anyone who stumbles onto this thread. A lot of link assumption questions involve Conditional and Causal logic and require you to find the 'missing link' in the stimulus.
The lessons I found most helpful in foundations are from the "Conditional and Set Logic" module. Specifically: Sets v Conditions, Group 1 - Sufficient Condition Indicators, Group 2 - Necessary Condition Indicators, Group 3 - Negate Sufficient, Group 4 - Negate Necessary, 4 Groups of Conditional Indicators Summary, Three Formal Arguments Combined, De Morgans Law, Kick it Up, and Bi-conditionals.
I went back and redid all of these lessons and it really helped me with link assumption stimuli. Good Luck!.
@rbahu Thank you! Did you find it was helpful to specifically drill conditional logic questions as well? I am wondering about what tags I can select when drilling to best access the types of questions I am looking to work on.
@saltysky! it did help to drill these questions and really take my time understanding the stimulus in my head. I would ID the conclusion and support, then ID the argument type and try to do a little lite diagramming to find the hole in the reasoning. After drilling SA questions a bunch I got much faster at it and can just recognize the missing piece right away on easy problems. You can do it!
I second this! I also struggle with these. I've been re-running questions I have gotten wrong, but I'm sure you have thought of that.