- Joined
- Oct 2025
- Subscription
- Core
In his explanation of question 5, the instructor says: “What thing does the bakery realize? It realized that it can’t continue to bake its traditional bread and as a consequence switched to a recipe that uses cornmeal”
But the answer key says that the word “and” on its own does not indicate a causal relationship between the clauses “it can’t continue to bake its traditional bread” and “it switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal”. The answer key says that “based on the meaning of the two clauses it’s strongly implied that the second clause is a consequence of the first clause.
I’ve done all the lessons in order so I haven’t gotten to the in-depth lessons that explain the types of relationships that can be expressed by joining clauses together. But it feels like whether or not the relationship is a causal one is important to the overall understanding of the sentence b/c if we’re saying that the fact that the bakery “can’t continue to bake its traditional bread” definitely causes the bakery to switch to a cornmeal recipe – that’s different than saying that it’s likely to have caused that switch.
So I'm wondering: Is it important to the overall understanding of the sentence whether or not the relationship is causal?
For question 3, would this be a correct application of the Domain-Rule Framework?
Domain: Cats waiting longer than 4 weeks
Rule: Any newly arrived cat will not be available for adoption unless the newly arrived cat is part of a bonded pair of cats
Any (newly arrived cat → /adoption) unless the newly arrived cat is part of a bonded pair of cats
/bonded → (newly arrived cat → /adoption)
/bonded and newly arrived → /adoption
If you are not bonded and you’re a newly arrived cat, then you are not available for adoption
If you are outside the domain, (ie. there are not cats waiting longer than 4 weeks), then the rule is silent on you - we don’t know whether you’ll be available for adoption
Is the stimulus in Q3 saying that both Mittens and Nittens are newly arrived or just Mittens?
For Q1,
Would it be wrong to say that "Some highly compensated surgeons enjoy the sight of blood." as opposed to "Some highly compensated people enjoy the sight of blood"?
And if so, is it because the stimulus didn't explicitly state that all surgeons are highly compensated people?