hi

shoutout minecraft

I thought D was incorrect because the author literally says that both studies yielded different results. But the fact that the author concluded that it's BECAUSE they used different methods of investigation is a flaw. The answer D is pretty much saying that

"Well the author is saying

different methods of investigation -> different results,

but

different methods of investigation -> /different results

can still exist since there's no solid proof of the conditional that the author made, only that it exists".

Lesson learned: DON'T TAKE WHAT THE AUTHOR SAYS AS A TRUE CLAIM!!!

You learn something about how "takes for granted" works every day.

In this case, we say something is "taken for granted" if a conclusion is made separate from other conditionals with no evidence to make it. For example. the conditional was made by Riley that inflammatory -> inappropriate. The author then concludes that /inflammatory -> /inappropriate. There was no setup to this, the only setup was that there was a feud between them and to not trust Riley's judgement. Therefore this was an unjust conditional definition, which is therefore "taken for granted".

Previously, I thought something is "taken for granted" only if it wasn't mentioned in the stim but sort of assumed by the author in the background. This was the first time since I learned this that it CAN be in the stim. That's why I eliminated it, because even though it did feel kinda out of left field, it was said in the stim. But nope.

B should not be correct.

If someone said "Cars nowadays share parts with lots of other cars, but that means that if one part is defective, lots of cars will be affected compared to the past where car parts were unique" and someone responded with "If the part goes wrong just replace it!!! Mechanics have the parts in stock", how is that weakening it at all?

It's not weakening the problem at all, the problem still exists and the disease can still devastate the crops. Am I thinking too deep about this?

Ok I was super confused with the wording here but after writing an analogy I started to understand why C was correct

It's like if someone said "the BEST way to learn how to ride a bike is with training wheels!" and someone responded with "there's NO way to learn how to ride a bike because training wheels don't exist!"

I underlined the main topic that both things are targeting because it made things easier for me to understand, but yeah

Just my thought process:

E is wrong because it gets things mixed up. It was talked about how thirst is stimulated only AFTER vasopressin is released.

I was picking between B and E because I really don't remember any mention of steroid hormones besides in the very beginning, so I don't think we can make that link.

B is then correct, because along with POE, everything about vasopressin secretion mentioned had to do with how the body needs to maintain homeostasis, getting more thirsty to maintain water retention, etc. With this answer, a more general understanding of what was discussed really helped pick the answer, because some sentences here were more difficult than average to comprehend.

B would have been right if the economy was discussed when they were talking about the punitive theory, but the economy was never of thought. The only thing in the theory that was really discussed was how those who are bankrupt should be imprisoned and that they are breaking contracts, not caring about the creditors. The economy was never mentioned.

C D and E all seem not really likely. I chose A because of POE, but A is correct because even though it seems lighter than what was discussed in the stim, the stim talks about how accumulation of excessive debt reflects negligence from a debtor and that them being imprisoned was rightful. This is accurately discussed in option A, talking about how the debt is a moral failing (negligence) and they provide punitive sanctions for it (prison).

I got this wrong since I assumed since economy was the main driving point against punitive theory that it was discussed for them too, but it wasn't. Make sure to get your facts straight on who is arguing for what!

I was picking between B and E.

I picked E because I thought this addressed the conflict between aggressive gestures and attacks; that they do either or. But from this, we still don't know why the attacks actually occur. Plus, if the ones who do gestures rarely do attacks, that means they still do attacks. Why? Sure this kinda solves it, but it doesn't completely solve it.

For B, I just assumed that for some reason "avoid physical aggression" means that they can still get mad and be aggressive after, but THIS IS A STUPID ASSUMPTION. THIS ASSUMPTION WASN'T MADE, SO IT'S NOT TRUE. Please, assume that whatever is in the text in front of you is all there is to know. If B is true and that doing these gestures completely avoid them from being aggressive with their actions, then this is true.

This is just a note I left for myself and thought maybe it's useful for people who make the same silly mistake as me

The main flaw here is that even though there were rules set for certain people, we don't know if those people will accept a proposal that slightly differs from their opinion just because we know their general opinion is strong.

D is false because it is said that Ed doesn't like extremely sweet food.

E is false since it talks about past trends vs now, that's different.

C is false because similar to D, the proposal directly ties to what he doesn't like.

A is false because it looks at the characteristics of a class then makes a prediction on what someone would like based on it, but the stim doesn't do that (it doesn't have characteristics to make an educated guess).

B is true because it has the flaw where yes, Jane doesn't want to live downtown and Denise wants to rent a penthouse, but that doesn't mean Jane will completely not rent the apartment nor that Denise WILL rent one of those apartments. This is also taking people’s general stances on an issue and trying to predict how they’ll react to particular decisions about that issue.

This one is dumb

A assumed that "MOST wildlife" includes deer.

B doesn't assume that "hunters kill no fewer deer today" means that EACH HUNTER kills no fewer deer on average.

Dumb

A and B just seem wrong. D and E are similar, but are both wrong in the sense that it could have been anyone's fingerprints still. C connects the ties for that knowing that the person that committed the murder was in his office, that knowing that ONLY two people were in the office rules out anybody else for being the murderer.

Lesson learned, EVERY SENTENCE IN THE STIM MATTERS. IF THERE IS A SET CONDITIONAL IN THE STIM, MAKE SURE TO FOCUS ON THAT.

When something is "taken for granted", that means that information was hidden in the background that the author just assumed would be true. E is then false since the author explicitly states how there is no feasible way to increase funds. C and D are obviously wrong. A is wrong because "FAR from certain" is a pretty strong claim. Sure the plan could not be certain, but FAR from certain takes it too far.

B is then true, since it gives us two options (increase funds or go with plan), takes out one option, then says we NEED to do the other option. This is the false dilemma flaw. When this happens, we have to consider how we could do other things to achieve the goal that the stim doesn't talk about. In this case, their "plan"/solution is not a required solution since we could still do other things, so B is the answer.

This confuses me. They specify that it was only during STONE AGE IRELAND, so why would it not be in a stone age ireland tomb then? We don't know if it was passed on after stone age ireland, so wouldn't it be reasonable to find it in a tomb at maybe the end of the stone age? That's a possibility.

Some of these "extra difficult" questions seem to lack some explanation in their assumptions. I have no clue how to work on these types of questions.

I think here I was too caught up on the first point of the stim being something that the author didn't like since the author was not focused on it. Lesson learned, if the author doesn't DIRECTLY oppose it, then still consider it as something the author believes or something the author at least DOESN'T NOT support. After realizing this, answer A makes a lot more sense.

Gonna be real, I'm still confused here.

I firstly did POE and literally all of them felt wrong, so I just chose C and moved on.

I did BR and quickly realized it was wrong and chose A, but now know that it's wrong because "All descriptions of monstrous beasts" can belong to other genres of stories that aren't horror stories, so the fact that is "describes violations of the laws of nature" could be wrong since the story could be something that isn't a horror story which that lawgic only applies to. Simple generalization. I originally thought A was wrong because I was too caught up on the "some" mentioned earlier, but it was wrong for another reason.

But even after seeing all these diagramming and stuff, literally NOBODY addresses the elephant in the room.

I understood the diagramming from the get go even when timed doing the question on the first try, but the fact that they say "some STORIES" means that they can mean ANY genre of story that employs symbolism, but we were told that "both kinds of horror stories share" the feature of describing violations of the laws of nature, and the WHOLE STIM only talks about horror stories, not stories in general.

So why can this INCREDIBLY stupid generalization be applied to answer E then, and for example, can't be applied to A? Again I already explained why I knew A was wrong, but it was because of generalization. E should then be wrong too based on generalization. All answers are wrong here. Even the basic built-in explanation of answer choice E just straight up assumed that saying "some stories" assumes that they are talking about horror stories.

Good lesson to lock in the conditionals, where we get:

irritable & loses things -> tired

And the author is saying:

loses things & tired -> irritable

Which the answer choice that points out this flaw is E. Answer choice D is not right, and I actually got this wrong because I wrote:

tired -> irritable & loses things

So make sure to understand the conditional words. ANYTHING that says "only" is right side gang, unless it says "THE only", then it's left.

I option A because it seemed like this was more or less a restatement of what was said in the stim and I was looking for an ADDITIONAL rule to add, but the fact is that this is rather DEFINING a rule that was sort of explained in the stim, which defining this rule would help justify the argument since it's now a DEFINED rule instead of a statement.

So for these justification questions, look for something that rather restates the stim and phrases it as a RULE

In answer A, they think it's useful, but they don't define it as "successful". For option E, "using resources to spur growth" does NOT mean getting alternative resources to help growth. I guess this is because if "alternative" was not mentioned, then it is pretty much saying using existing resources, which we want alternative.

C is correct because it more or less ties together the two points that they made about satisfying human wants and having equilibrium with nature. Sure they didn't mention that it was SPECIFICALLY "successful", but all the other options were simply incorrect, and these preferences were stated by the steady-state people for a solid economy, so it's therefore correct.

heh weiner

ice cream sushi ranch pickle smoothie 🤤

I started reading these in JY's voice and now I'm actually getting them correct wtf

A necessary assumption will prevent your argument from being completely false:

You are trying to survive an apocolypse. the necessary assumption is that you have food, since without food, you're dead

A sufficient assumption will make your argument true:

You are trying to survive an apocolypse. the sufficient assumption is that you are in a stacked bunker. it has everything you need, you definitely will survive.

I didn't choose B because I saw "not adequately understood" as not the same thing as "yet to be studied" since if you don't really understand the side effects, wouldn't that imply that some study occurred that people don't quite understand? Because why would you not adequately understand something if that something wasn't even studied yet? That word confused me

Reading answer A got me feeling introspective