For question 5, I got the right answer, but I was unable to understand how we landed on the conclusion that the opposite of preserving artistic heritage was people currently alive doing things that would damage artistic heritage.
For Q5, would it be incorrect to assume that the 'rights of any presently living individual' refers to their right to have their artistic heritage preserved?
I figured 'the rights' was a referential to 'the right to have their artistic heritage preserved'.
Upon reviewing, I'm wondering: is it that "the rights" isn't referential becuase it's plural?
I think the assumption is still correct because there's no actual clarification on what rights those presently living individuals have to art, so you can really make it up. I think just as long as it makes sense and you understood the comparative its okay to assume that.
5/5. But for Step 1 in Q # 5, I interpreted "rights of any people currently alive" to mean that any rights they have will not be of greater importance than the right of future generations to preserve their artistic heritage.
Is this correct for question 4: Comparing: injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1980 vs injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1950. What we're comparing them on: Which makes a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries? Winner: injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts in 1980.
For question #5, I'm still not understanding how we are able to assume that "the rights of any presently living individual" refers to the right of any presently living individual to destroy a piece of artistic heritage. How do we assume these are the "rights" they're talking about?
I don't think this will be helpful to you anymore lol but the way that I'm thinking about it is its talking about two different rights. Future generations have more of a right to enjoying artistic heritage (studying the Mona Lisa...) than the rights (freedoms) of current individuals to privately own or destroy the art. We don't have (this) right so that future generations have their right (enjoying artistic heritage).
For question "Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950," would the thing that we are comparing be the percentage of ski related injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts or the smallness of the percentage of ski related injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts?
Since the "winner" is 1980, I would think technically we are comparing the smallness of the percentage.
Technically what we're comparing is the percentage, but the winner depends on the superlative. Basically, whichever side has the "er" at the end is typically the winner. In this case, 1980 has the "er". If the stimulus said "injuries...made up a larger percentage of injuries in 1980 than in 1950", 1980 would still be the winner.
Yes, that's what I thought, too, but got the impression from the video answers that you couldn't really pick the winner since there weren't any hard numbers involved.
Kinda funny that those who truly represent the will of the people are not influenced by criticism (criticism: a great way for people to express their will)
For 5, wouldn't the referential of rights for the second group also be "to have artistic heritage preserved". I'm confused how we can jump to the argument assuming they will destroy it.
@dancingqueen138 I don't think the content in parentheses is fact, it's more mapping the information onto to something concrete so it's easier to parse the comparative. the emphasis is on the "rights of future generations vs the rights of any presently living individual." The argument doesn't tell us what presently living individuals would do, but assuming some kind of action can help pick up on what is being actually compared.
#feedback In the answer for question 3, both times "several years after 1929 (1930, 1921, etc.)" should read "several years after 1929 (1930, 1931, etc.)"
For question 2, here's what I wrote. Is this the same as the answer?
Consumers are no more likely to buy products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells than they are to buy products whose safety was tested on animals.
Two things being compared: products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells vs. products whose safety was tested on animals
Quality/Characteristic being compared: which products are consumers NOT more likely to buy?
Winner: products whose safety was tested on human-cells cultures
For #4 a better translation of ski related injuries could be an injury you get while putting your ski gear on in the parking lot or getting fitted at a rental place.
72 comments
For question 5, I got the right answer, but I was unable to understand how we landed on the conclusion that the opposite of preserving artistic heritage was people currently alive doing things that would damage artistic heritage.
Finally I get 5/5 omg i've been waiting for this moment!
5 out of 5 this time!
This felt much easier than the previous exercise.
@paigeisabel Literally
@paigeisabel Probably because every question here states the things being compared. At least, that's why I found it easier
That "no" threw me for a loop! Will definitely be more on the lookout for negatives now :)
For Q5, would it be incorrect to assume that the 'rights of any presently living individual' refers to their right to have their artistic heritage preserved?
I figured 'the rights' was a referential to 'the right to have their artistic heritage preserved'.
Upon reviewing, I'm wondering: is it that "the rights" isn't referential becuase it's plural?
@AryanNooshi
I also thought that.
I think the assumption is still correct because there's no actual clarification on what rights those presently living individuals have to art, so you can really make it up. I think just as long as it makes sense and you understood the comparative its okay to assume that.
5/5 - its starting to make sense!!
5/5 finally!
5/5!!!
I was speed reading and missed that "no" on question 2. lol...Better luck next time haha.
5/5 finally!
5/5. But for Step 1 in Q # 5, I interpreted "rights of any people currently alive" to mean that any rights they have will not be of greater importance than the right of future generations to preserve their artistic heritage.
Is this correct for question 4: Comparing: injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1980 vs injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1950. What we're comparing them on: Which makes a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries? Winner: injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts in 1980.
@VanillaCat Yes! In comparing the number of injuries in 1980 and 1950, the winner is 1980s.
@MarcusTsang Goat
How is #2 different than #5 on the first skill builder, "no more evidence to show" selfishly/unselfishly? I don't understand.
@emmavandyke I'm also extremely confused by this
For question #5, I'm still not understanding how we are able to assume that "the rights of any presently living individual" refers to the right of any presently living individual to destroy a piece of artistic heritage. How do we assume these are the "rights" they're talking about?
I don't think this will be helpful to you anymore lol but the way that I'm thinking about it is its talking about two different rights. Future generations have more of a right to enjoying artistic heritage (studying the Mona Lisa...) than the rights (freedoms) of current individuals to privately own or destroy the art. We don't have (this) right so that future generations have their right (enjoying artistic heritage).
For question "Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950," would the thing that we are comparing be the percentage of ski related injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts or the smallness of the percentage of ski related injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts?
Since the "winner" is 1980, I would think technically we are comparing the smallness of the percentage.
Technically what we're comparing is the percentage, but the winner depends on the superlative. Basically, whichever side has the "er" at the end is typically the winner. In this case, 1980 has the "er". If the stimulus said "injuries...made up a larger percentage of injuries in 1980 than in 1950", 1980 would still be the winner.
Yes, that's what I thought, too, but got the impression from the video answers that you couldn't really pick the winner since there weren't any hard numbers involved.
#2 tripped me up on the winner part.
I need to redo the comparative section again at some point.
Question #1:
Kinda funny that those who truly represent the will of the people are not influenced by criticism (criticism: a great way for people to express their will)
5/5 lets go baby
Q1 was hard lol. I think its also because the sentences are longer and it negative comparatives.
For 5, wouldn't the referential of rights for the second group also be "to have artistic heritage preserved". I'm confused how we can jump to the argument assuming they will destroy it.
@dancingqueen138 I don't think the content in parentheses is fact, it's more mapping the information onto to something concrete so it's easier to parse the comparative. the emphasis is on the "rights of future generations vs the rights of any presently living individual." The argument doesn't tell us what presently living individuals would do, but assuming some kind of action can help pick up on what is being actually compared.
#feedback In the answer for question 3, both times "several years after 1929 (1930, 1921, etc.)" should read "several years after 1929 (1930, 1931, etc.)"
For question 2, here's what I wrote. Is this the same as the answer?
Consumers are no more likely to buy products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells than they are to buy products whose safety was tested on animals.
Two things being compared: products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells vs. products whose safety was tested on animals
Quality/Characteristic being compared: which products are consumers NOT more likely to buy?
Winner: products whose safety was tested on human-cells cultures
For #4 a better translation of ski related injuries could be an injury you get while putting your ski gear on in the parking lot or getting fitted at a rental place.
Am I the only one still struggling at this? Like if the same.