- Joined
- Jul 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@JuliaWise I tried to squeeze this stimulus into conditional logic, which kept me from noticing the bigger picture. I can instead ask myself as I approach each question: "Does this question elicit a conditional logic diagram? Or should I just be thinking big picture about this?" Sometimes that's a hard call - and that is where practice comes in; it helps inform such value judgments.
Did not consider until BR that the owner might have stolen the diamonds, and that the whole argument hinges on the implicit denial of this possibility...!
@Exotic_Desk_679 I foresee a difficulty with labeling these by flaw type, however. Some of us like to try to figure the answer out by clicking the "Show question" button on top of the video, and if the flaw was already labeled in the lesson title, then that would influence how we choose our answer.
I got this question wrong two weeks ago and watched the explanation video to try to figure it out. I had so much trouble understanding the video. Now, just two weeks later (after continuing to plow through 22 hrs of LR curriculum per week), I understand this so much better. Slow and steady wins the race!
Just the discussion of the difference between AC A and AC B alone made this video worth watching.
I really appreciate the explanation videos, because they help me begin to recognize the kinds of patterns present in wrong answers. J.Y. is very good at breaking these patterns down!
In my own words, ya'll (caveats of "I'm not a tutor," etc.):
WHY I initially got this wrong: I picked the stronger of the two assumptions (AC E - which I believe is a SA) instead of just the assumption that would keep the arg alive (AC B). I had it narrowed down to both of them.
Why B is objectively correct (and why I changed to it on blind review):
Here's is the structure of the arg, first...
Premises: Colette novel --> poetic condensation AND major emotional crisis AND ordinary person
Conclusion: Charge of indifference to moral questions is UNFAIR.
AC A is wrong b/c it is irrelevant. Ain't nobody got time for that! This arg is NOT about critics...once we hit the conclusion and its premises. The initial context alone is about critics.
AC C has to do with "level of praise..." also irrelevant. Again, more about critics. Context about critics, NOT conclusion/author's arg.
AC D is also irrelevant. The arg does not in any way try to connect the language of her work with the concept of poetic condensation.
AC E involves Colette's purpose. It DOES connect the relevant concepts of poetic condensation of emotional crisis AND moral questions. We do not know if E represents Colette's purpose (arg doesn't hint at Colette's purpose per se), and we do not know from the arg either if the author himself thinks that this was Colette's purpose. The raising of moral questions that results from the emotional crisis and poetic condensation could be either accidental (Colette wasn't thinking about causing that effect) OR purposeful. WE DON'T KNOW.
AC B is correct b/c it keeps the arg on life support. If B is NOT true, the arg breaks down. Think: "A novel with major emot cris DOES have to be indifferent to important moral questions raised by that crisis." That is NOT what the argument says at all. It directly goes against the arg, and smashes it to smithereens.
AC B is weak, and that's ok. But it's necessary for the argument to keep on trucking.
Concrete habit I can do differently: Watch out - NA answers can be really weak. Resist the urge to choose an answer that seems to strengthen the argument rather than just doing the bare minimum. Here is a territory where mediocrity is actually ok...!
I think from now on I'm going to hear JY's voice in my head when I am moving past a wrong answer: "Ain't nobody got time for that!" (see 12:02 in video).
@alzayadi444 Agreed - I started with necessary assumption videos because I had trouble with this question type on PTs, and I decided to just follow the whole LR block of curriculum step by step because I believed it would help me better understand necessary assumptions. It really has. They're still hard, but not incomprehensible like they were when I did things out of order.
I am almost done with all the study videos for LR, and I am now coming back and watching these "Kick up to the Domain" videos with significantly more understanding than I had when I watched them the first time. Truly. Bookmark and come back after Sufficient Assumption videos in the LR section!
JY said to create your own argument along the structure of this question, so see below if you're feeling restless with your studies and want to read the work of an amateur!
Good hygiene is desirable because it helps a person in everything from relationships to work opportunities. Those who have well-developed hygiene habits are more likely to achieve good hygiene than those who have neglected to build relevant routines into their lives. But some people have experienced significant life setbacks that have hindered them from building these relevant routines. Therefore, those people will likely have terrible relationships and not get promoted at work.
Missing premise: If build good habits/routines for hygiene, THEN you are more likely to have good relationships and promising work opportunities.
Correct answer choice could look something like this: Practicing regular hygiene habits makes it more likely than not that someone will enjoy promising relationships and work opportunities.
Why I got this question wrong: I did not correctly characterize the subset to superset relationship here.
Why AC B is correct: Because it guarantees that the conclusion MUST follow. It ensures that the set of etching tools used for engraving MUST be larger than the set of etching tools that are NOT used for engraving. Why?
Say we have 20 pin tools, and 20 blade tools. We know that 20 pins are in the superset of engraving tools. We also know that some - at least 1, but with unknown upward bound - of the blade tools also belong in that engraving tools superset. However, we need to GUARANTEE that the subset of blade tools does not outnumber the pin tools. Otherwise, our conclusion would not be true - because remember, all pin tools are used for engraving, while some blade tools are and some are not.
Say we have the minimum possible number of blade tools in this engraving tools set - 1 ("some" = at least 1). Then add 20 pin tools (must belong in set because "all" do) to 1, and you now have 21 tools in the engraving superset. You now have 19 left outside the superset, in the blade tools subset. B MUST BE TRUE. There is no other way to ensure that the answer isn't 5 pin tools and 50 bladed tools, for example! (which by the way is a possibility that D leaves open)
@JuliaWise But there is also an attempted (but failed) bridge between money and happiness in B. How could that be explained using this process, I wonder?
@paligrrl Your explanation is incredibly clear and helpful. Wow. Thank you!
Even if I get a question right, I watch the video afterward so I can make sure my reasons for getting it right/underlying thought processes map on to those of the expert. This really helps me learn!
@JuliaWise Also, in Lesson 1 - The Effectiveness of Obvious Flattery (coming up in a couple lessons), JY explains how PSA and SA questions are both similar and different - right in the beginning of the video for that lesson!
@Bruh It's also the level of strength that's required for the answer. PSAs asked us for questions that "most helps justify," which is a lower bar of strengthening than is required for SA questions. SA questions require that we literally make the argument valid, while PSA questions did not require this. Often we did make arguments valid during PSA questions, but we did not have to. I hope that helps a bit...?
So very helpful. I feel as if I am a Jedi in training who can finally start using The Force.
Question 4 is actually a Sufficient Assumption question stem...not a Necessary Assumption stem.