What the hell was this stem?

P1: some view of every person being super selfish-> /gov by consent

Conc: Social theorists who believe people who are super selfish also believe that democracy is pointless

P2: /gov by consent-> /democracy

This makes no sense to me until I realized P1 isn't a true conditional its an "implication". (Idk why but I just thought of that scene in Its always sunny"

So analogous to that scene it isnt a direct clear statement more of an unspoken thing. why is why its unfair to land on the conclusion of yes these social theorist evidently believe this....Because it was an implication.....

@IsabelleSantiago skip ahead and check out the flaw list, and then come back to it. I solved every question n the flaw list and came up with my own examples for the flaws and came back to this and it just kinda clicked

@HilarySackor Try adding it is not true in front of the correct answer choice.

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT /scientifically valid info-> likely to do more harm than good

Then what is the point of having scientifically valid info? Why is quackery bad? The entire stim falls apart and all the premises are rendered moot.

sweet jesus got this right but it took me 4 minutes. I kept getting lost in the stimulus and trying to figure out the logic of the bad answers and forgetting what I was trying to prove ( engraving>/engraving)

A) All tools used for engraving are etching tools as well

Doesnt matter and I already assumed this.

B) There are as many pin-tipped etching tools as there are bladed etching tools.

guarantees the conc. If there are 100 bladed and 100 pin tip, then 100 engraving from pintip and even if just 1 bladed is for engraving then the conclusion follows. 101 engraving 99 /engraving.

@CaseyLiu

A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food

this answer choice is connected to Premise 3 which states irradiation->URP-> health problem+ cancer

we aren't denying the premise of URP's causing health problems and cancer. The answer choice tells us that the URP that shows up from irradiating our food rarely shows up in the food, it still shows up when we irradiate but it doesn't matter cuz we aren't eating it. So it weakens the claim that we need to avoid irradiated food.

C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged.

P2 says irradiation CAN reduce the vit content of fresh foods leaving behind gunk). Never says it always does but that it CAN. That one little word changes ALOT on this damn test. For example whenever I turn on my stove it CAN blow up my house and DOES blow up my house are 2 completely different things.

But now the answer choice is saying in a study rads doesnt affect the food. We know it CAN but in this particular study it showed it DOESNT. Which weakens the claim that we should avoid avoid irradiated food.

D) This is a comparative statement turns out the bad chems in irradiated food (while still being bad for human consumption) arent as numerous as the bad chems in normal food. Which weakens for sure.

E) Just says oh the cancer scare we got from the P3 isnt a major cause for cancer. People that eat irradiated food arent more at risk than people that eat normal food. We just assumed that OMG theres URP's that come from the irradiation process we're all going to die of cancer but in truth it doesnt raise our risk of cancer more than someone who eates normal food.

The problem I originally had was I attributed my own thoughts and assumptions of the premises to be true and was too in my own head . Like OMG irradiation can kill vit content and leaves behind gunk , it must always happen every time. Ahhhh irradiation leaves behind URPS that will give me cancer. The URP must be on my food after being irradiated every time!!!!!! But these are assumptions and knee jerk reactions to the premise.

My suggestion is treat the premises like News headlines they mean what they say but somewhere along the lines theres some BS you have to wade through to get to the truth

@Julietb07 ur not alone

Sweet goodness I came back after finishing this section to review and I just barely got it. I only eliminated E because i reread the stim and saw it wasn't a direct experiment. it was about the subjects and not the beta carotene.

Less smoking-> more beta carotene> less cancer risk. So maybe they were just healthier people.

This question made my balls ache...I got this question right without really understanding what the premise was saying( I hate science topics), so here was my train of thought.

Summary of Stim

-2 molecules in weed killer brand(both mirror images)

-one kills weeds, the other does fuck all

-effectiveness dependent on local soil conditions cuz of molecule concentration in the soil? (what does that even mean), different soil different reaction?

Conc: Data of effects is BS

Thought process behind picking an answer

A) Just repeats second point, bye bye

B) Equally concentrated? Equally likely? But its effectiveness is soil dependent? They ignored the truth of the prem! Gotcha!

C)Has nothing to do with data, pce

D)Literally weakens Conc that the data is BS, go away

E) Literally a word salad, sounds good but doesn't fit into the premise. Its attractive because it states that the Data is BS, but its also wrong because thats the only thing its doing.

@Patni Grammar Parsing helps alottttt. But the biggest think for me was to

1. Take everything written in the premise to be a fact.

2. Any additional info in the answer choices are facts, if they attack the conclusion then its probably wrong.

3. Look at answer choices as additional facts in the OG stim, when added if they weaken or strengthen the possibility of the conc being true then thats the right answer.

4. READ CAREFULLY, I cant tell you enough how many questions I've gotten wrong because I missed a word in the answer choices, especially words like some,all, most

damn, i got the answer wrong during blind review..i suck

Dang it took me 5 minutes to be comfortable with B. I knew it was right but when placed against E it was a challenge. The only reason I didn't pick E was because of the word believe.

E is wrong because just because someone believes themselves to be X doesn't mean that belief is valid.

I don't understand this. How can you not have a copy of the script if you are an actor who played a role in Hamlet? How did you memorize your lines?!!!! How would you know the lines of your other co actors if you didn't have a copy of the script?

@TheBigFatPanda you are most definitely not alone

@di003 uhhhhh same, I got reminded of that lesson where the contrapositive of hot is /hot, which doesnt mean that its cold. So i didnt want to assume that the contrapositive of uncomy->/welldesigned was if welldesigned> comfy

@Solawyer get rid of useless info quickly

Isnt only a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?

@dsouzakaitlyn3

Some uni students study philosophy. Some students who study philsophy have 4.0 gpas. Therefore, some uni students have 4.0 gpas.

uni<s>philo

students who study philo<s>4.0 gpas 

Conc: uni students<s>4.0 gpa

There isn't sufficient information to guarantee this conclusion. 

some can be .01-all, there no guarantee of this statement that the group of uni students and the group of 4.0 gpa people have to intersect. Whereas if the chain looked like uni<s>philo>4.0 gpa would mean some uni students study philosophy and all who study philosophy have 4.0 gpas we can say with confidence that there would be some uni students have 4.0 gpas. With the current stem we can't confidently confirm this 

@FranciscoLee I think it is correct because your drawing you conclusion from the fact the produce from the California element of the stem. A simpler way to look at it would be All implies most, so if all produce from Cali is almonds then also produce from California-m>almonds is also valid. So then just switch it around A-m>B and A-m>c

Conc: B<s>C

Thus making it a valid conclusion.

@tortellinibrain

produce from California>almonds

produce from California-m-> Brazil

-------------

Produce from Brazil <s> almonds

hahah a bit confusing to figure this one out

the form would look like

A>B

A-m->C

C<s>B ?

@Sagacious_Saxon0424 I'm so happy you're improving. These basics were so confusing and frustrating at first for me as well. I would find myself always asking myself why I needed to master these concepts, but after doing the LR that mastery of these concepts is pretty crucial, and no doubt ur gonna keep improving. Always wishing you the best!

@amhejka1 not completely independent. I mean if you fulfill the sufficient condition it will guarantee the necessary condition. And if you fail the necessary then you fail the sufficient.

Or did you mean the fact that fulfilling the sufficient condition is only one way to guarantee the necessary , leaving many other avenues of thought?

@KatarinaS Necessary condition is the superset. Sufficient condition is the subset.

umm a simpler way to visualize it for me was to think of the sufficient condition as a trigger, if it is completed then the necessary condition must follow. However if the necessary condition doesnt happen (aka contrapositive) then the sufficient condition didn't happen.

Ex: if i press my finger on the trigger then the gun will explode.

Sufficient Condition: Pressing finger on the trigger

Necessary Condition: Gun will explode

If the gun didnt explode then I didnt press my finger on the trigger.

But on thing to remember is that pressing my finger on the trigger isnt the only thing that will make the gun explode. There can be a myriad of things that produce that result, all we can say for 100% certainty is that if the gun didnt explode then I didnt press my finger on the trigger

@Sagacious_Saxon0424 hmm i dont know what exactly your struggling with but, the way I think of it is that I'm not trying to find the contrapositive. With negations I'm essentially giving the middle finger to the Lawgic being present.

for example in number three it is If 3+inches > cancelled. To negate this im not going to go /cancelled>/3+inches. Why? Because that means I respect the Lawgic being presented to me, instead the goal is to invalidate the lawgic altogether. So 3+ and /cancelled ( its possible for it to snow 3+ inches and for school to not be cancelled.) I am rejecting the argument in its totality and saying that it is fundamentally wrong

Original: Most vegans who are mute are kind 

Negated: It's not the case that most vegans who are mute are kind 

Translated: 0-50% of vegans who are mute are kind 

so for example some vegans are kind

Negated: No vegans are kind

we are denying the intersection of the relationship in its entirety. Because few= at least 1 we must go with the definitive no claim to establish that no vegans are in fact kind