Got this one right in only a minute and a half! Very encouraging after frustratingly getting one wrong earlier in the lesson. It's odd which questions feel super easy and which don't. Did not expect this one to be a 5/5 difficulty. Felt like a 3/5 at most. Then some of the 3/5's I expected to be much higher difficulty.

I think this one just trips people up with the medical terms and having a conclusion that might be slightly challenging to identify. If you quickly identify the conclusion that immune cells cause cognitive deterioration in Alzheimer's, it's a much easier question to breeze through. Stimmy says Aspirin helps slow the deterioration, answer says Aspirin reduces immune cells in the brain. That aligns well with the conclusion that immune cells cause the deterioration. If you compare the conclusion to the all the other answers, it's easier to see that none of them support the argument.

Got this one ez in under a minute! Hell yeah!

I think strengthen might be harder for me than the others. The other lessons were easy to nail, but this seems more tricky. If answer E was worded in the "more difficult" way, I don't think I would get this one right. With answer E as is, it's fairly easy.

Another correct one in about half the time! That's always encouraging!

Feels good to get these higher difficulty questions in right around a minute!

#help. I do not see how E is incorrect.

The historians obviously let their aesthetic preferences influence their teleological narrative of the progression of jazz towards autonomy from capitalistic forces, hence why only once these ties were severed did jazz truly become "art" in their eyes. Swing outlived it's artistic purposes, in their view, because it was being propped up by commercial forces, not genuine artistic expression. The fact that genuine artistic expressions need to be autonomous from capitalistic motives IS an aesthetic preference. And it's this preference towards anticapitalism that skews their entire view of the telos of bebop.

The author says the historians' teleological historical narrative of jazz' progression culminating in the genre severing ties with commercialism is incorrect, because such analysis idealizes the circumstances of artistic expression, and represses the reality that all musical entertainment has relations to commerce. How could these historians improperly idealize certain aspects of artistic expression, and repress other aspects they dislike, without having an improper influence from their personal aesthetic preferences? The historians treat anti-consumerism as the aesthetic principle behind bebop, and therefore devalue earlier, more commercial forms of jazz. They project this aesthetic preference backwards onto the history of jazz, construing bebop's supposed severing of commercial ties as the overarching telos of the genre.

My prediction: The drivers are more cautious when another car is waiting, so as to avoid hitting the waiting car. The honking causes them to slow down even more, because it makes them think that they're about to hit another car.

So basically you have to be kinda like Android 19 and absorb the ki from the kamehameha wave?

Hell yeah! 5/5 correct and averaging 12.4 seconds under the target time! Really encouraging!

RELEASE THE WALKER FILES!

A: This must be false because we know right away from the stimmy that investment is not decreasing. Knowing that investment is not decreasing logically leads us to validly infer that the economy is not weak, due to the contrapositive of the conditional chain laid out in the stimmy. A is saying that one of them must be true, but neither can be true; therefore, A must be a false statement.

B: We do not know from the stimmy what happens if unemployment rises, other than investment decreases. Investment decreasing does not tell us anything about prices remaining constant. S

C: This cannot be false, because the conditional chain in the stimmy dictates that it must be true. It's logically equivalent to: A -> B -> C ; A -> C. The stimmy gives us: A -> B -> C ; and answer C gives us: A -> C. Therefore, it must be true.

D: We know the economy is not weak, but we don't know if prices are remaining constant. We also don't know what happens if prices remain constant. Based on the stimmy we cannot conclude that this statement must be false. The statement could be true, or it could be false.

E: We know from the stimmy that unemployment is not rising, because we know that investment is not decreasing. Therefore, we can take the contrapositive of the second sentence in the stimmy to validly infer that unemployment must not be rising. This also allows us to infer that the economy is not rising. Therefore, since both parts are true, then this statement must be true.

I got this one in 45 secs!

Tangentially, I think E actually deepens the paradox. If they can't even agree on the proper procedure for making an estimate, and all use different techniques, but most still agree this has no impact on their resulting estimate, then that is just further proof that something more complex is going on.

I almost predicted D. I figured the bug zappers might kill too many insects and/or be harmful to the ecosystem in some way. B almost got me, but it didn't mention why the birds or sprays are preferable. They could be even worse at killing mosquitoes than the zappers. We don't know.

Got this one in under a minute!

This was so painfully obvious upon blind review... LMAO

Got this one right in under a minute!

But... I missed a slightly easier one on the drill because I misinterpreted a sentence in the stimmy.

It's always interesting to me which ones are supposed to be "harder" or "easier" than others. I consistently do really well on 5/5 difficulty questions, but either blunder or waste time on 3s and 4s. I wish I could figure out why.

Does anyone else experience this?

My principle: Children generally learn words for objects based on the utility of the object, so sometimes they misidentify new objects with similar utility as objects they've already encountered.

I almost immediately picked B, but for some reason my brain said, "Nah, that's too different from C-4 crops! They have rubisco!" Even though the question was asking which would provide a similar advantage. Damn me for second guessing myself. It just seemed too easy.

Still, only -1 on this passage doesn't feel too bad, since all the questions are 3+ difficulty.

I rejected B, because I thought that if the stimulus outright stated something as a premise, then that means it's not an assumption. However, the stimmy only said they were 5,000 years old and found in this region, not that they were present in the region 5KYA. They could have been brought to the region much more recently than 5KYA. If they weren't present 5KYA.

A neater way to write Q2 would be:

B or J -> R -> A -> S

S -> A -> R -> B & J

Evolve -> Capable of Evolving -> Well-Trained -> Trained -> Reach Full Potential.

Fun fact: If Westerville accounted for any more than ~87.3% of the total student body, it would be mathematically impossible for Harrison University to have 38% of students taking night classes. Not without exceeding the limit of 100% of Pulham students taking at least one night class, which would be impossible.

The "or higher" was the only tricky part about this question. Minor detail that's easy to miss between two very similar answer choices.

#feedback Links to the bar exam question still do not work.

This explanation video makes it so much more difficult to understand this problem. Bro is just yapping and yapping. He explains this question in the most overinvolved and convoluted way. Maybe there was a better problem to use as an example of the shit you're trying to teach in this lesson. The question was way easier to understand by just reading it directly on its own instead of watching this video.