For AC A, I negated it to say:

no matter what [regardless of] the public's opinion is on an issue affecting the public good, that public opinion [NEED NOT] to be acted on, even though the opinion may not be a knowledgeable one.

this seemed to break the argument. Can someone #help with the negations here?

I incorrectly chose A. Can someone #help clarify negations here.

I negated E to say :

"if the public feels that it does not benefit from the sculpture, this [DOES NOT SHOW] that the public does not in fact benefit from the sculpture."

this did not break the argument and I moved on. Should the correct negation have been?:

NOT[if the public feels that it does not benefit from the sculpture, this shows that the public does not in fact benefit from the sculpture] or, after distribution:

"if the public feels that it DOES benefit from the sculpture, this [DOES NOT] shows that the public DOES in fact benefit from the sculpture"

this negation seems to break the argument. Is that correct?

Where can I find more on error correction mechanism?

#feedback

#feedback need 7sage offline so I can use it on a plane ✈️

M-PA-le-le

(clarifying "ph" is not making an "F" sound)

@jessicatattcopy

Is this both critique-debate and problem-analysis?

Reading the section - it's very difficult to tell what is part of the passage, and what is usage commentary

"But Weiner's opponents contend that his views betray a certain nostalgia for the idea of the 'noble savage.' "

The explanation says Weiner's view reflects noble-savage nostalgia. The text says his views betray noble-savage nostalgia.

What is the meaning here?

"The camera is not so at odds with Kayapo culture, it seems, that it transforms any Kayapo who uses it into a Westerner."

Isn't the bolded portion Weiner's whole argument? This conclusion threw me off

on 1.10.23 @lazar.steven-1-1

said that AC (B): Traffic laws applying to high-speed roadways should apply uniformly across the nation.

implies that ex. 75mph should apply for /level & /straight strches of roads.

Thank you!!

@lazar.steven-1-1

Thank you!

is "such" referring to high speed roadways?

@7Sage Tutor

I appreciate the Student's question & Tutor's response. I am still not understanding how the gap from high speed roadways to all such roadways is bridged or justified. (Maybe it's not).

I am more confused by the Tutor's statement that [one of] the reasoning[s] of the argument is not that "there is a speed limit of 75 miles per hour in Texas, therefore every other state should have a speed limit of 75 miles per hour." There is a "Since" before P2 which implies that (Conc.) - the uniform national standard is supported by the fact that (P2) - the actual average is 75mph on high speed roadways.

Before I looked at the answer choices, I loosely diagrammed: Because of (govt study results - P1) & (actual 75mph average - P2) ---> should be set

P1 & P2 refer to high-speed roadways while the conclusion refers to all such roadways (in the domain of level, straight stretches). I chose AC (B) because it was the only choice that bridged the assumption from high speed roadways to all such roadways as the Student mentioned.

I can concede the original explanation's point that "applying" in AC (B) assumes that 75mph is the actual traffic law in place. Though, this discussion confused me further & I'm looking for some clarity. Thank you.

@renmiyano I had the same question. I think we are assuming that just because the physician received an apology that she was owed an apology. To diagram:

same lie 2 diff -> (/both owed -> neither owed)

[we cannot replace the arrow with AND in the necessary condition, we take one claim out of the conjunctive and move to to sufficient like so:]

same lie 2 diff AND /both owed -> neither owed)

[contrapose: flip, negate, & turn the AND to an OR]

/neither owed --> /same lie 2 diff OR both owed

[for my simplification, /neither owed = someone owed]

someone owed --> /same lie 2 diff OR both owed

Is the sufficient condition triggered? Instinctually, I assumed because the physician received a sincere apology that they were owed one, but that is not explicitly stated. If the sufficient isn't fulfilled, then we can't guarantee the necessary condition that both are owed a sincere apology based off the facts given by the stimulus.

I think that's accurate. Please someone confirm or deny. Happy studying.

#help

I chose E in attempts to deny the assumption of the geologists "earliest known traces of multicellular animal life."

What if worms existed 500 million years earlier than other multicellular animals? It sounds like E gives an explanation for why worms could have existed for example, 600+ million years prior, because "evidence of their earliest existence is scarce" (due to soft tissue).

Doesn't this weaken the conclusion that claims worms could not have left the tracks?

@ciwsoller @mariafreese

Was thinking this also. Thanks for the Q&A

what is the shortcut to make superscripts and subscripts (exponent)