Hey guys,
I tried to find JY’s post about which watches he recommends to no avail.
I’ve read a host of discussions, but still am not sure which one is the best choice and how to use it effectively?
Thank you in advance 😌
#help
Dramamine Example:
The people who take Dramamine - an anti-sea-sickness medication- end up reporting symptoms of seasickness more often, more frequently, and severely than people who don't take it.
Does that mean Dramamine doesn't work?
No, it means people who were more prone to seasickness would have taken it, to begin with, and maybe they had their symptoms mitigated.
-------
JY then draws a comparison and say "as we see it here: 1000 cases reported is the mitigated effects of anti-virus software; so the argument overlooks the possibility that the protective measures did work".
What I fail to understand is how are these two examples the same, considering their outcomes are completely the opposite?
For Dramamine, the people who took it reported symptoms more often, more frequently and severely than people who didn't take it; how does that support the fact that it was mitigating their symptoms, thus supporting the conclusion that it was not the case that it's not effective? if anything, it could be said that it was worsening their symptoms.
On the other hand, for this question, the antivirus has worked, it has mitigated the chances of more computers being infected with the virus.
Thanks in advance :)
#help I chose the correct answer, but I got caught up on B, because I thought it could be a competing explanation for this causal theory.
I translated it as, because many of the patients had not taken a beta-2 agonist -which is what Asthmagon is-, their adverse side effects were as a result of them being introduced to the beta-2 agonist for the first time, and not this particular drug(so it’s not this particular drug’s fault in simple terms). Hence, it should not be banned.
Is it incorrect because I made a further assumption than granted?
#help I'm confused by this one. I've gotten all the questions in sets 1&2 right thus far, except this one.
The necessary/sufficient assumptions could be written out in lawgic in both ways at first glance, and in the comments, the necessary/sufficient assumptions have been written out both ways.
1)
Move to town/Proximity ---> L/
(if he moves into town/has proximity to people ---> he would not be lonely)
the use of the word "so" suggests L/ is the conclusion.
why he will not be lonely anymore? because if he moves to town, he will have proximity to people.
--------------------
2) then Ralph suggests only proximity is not enough, but GI is also needed.
L/---> move to town/ proximity
L/---> genuine interaction
if he wants to not be lonely anymore, he needs both proximity to people and genuine interaction.
why should he move to town and why should he need genuine interaction? to not be lonely anymore
-------
which one is correct?
#help I can't believe I spent 5 minutes on this question mapping and still got it wrong, while the answer was so simple!
More importantly, with the phrase " if deceit is a quality of rottenness", I read it as deceit is a quality necessary for rottenness ( D--> R)
But it could also be read as if rottenness subsumes one of its qualities, which is deceit, on top of others such as being short-tempered, which could also be a quality of rottenness. In this case, it would be (R--> D) IF you are rotten, you are deceitful.
Which one is correct and why is the other incorrect?
#help My problem with this question is equating Machine/---> only by hand, as well as equating Long Fiber/---> Short Fiber.
From my understanding from previous questions, JY always cautions against making further inferences than granted.
In this instance, if LF/, it could very easily be a medium fibre that exists of this special kind of cotton. Why does it have to equate to Short?
the same goes for Machine/--> only by hand. There could very well be other forms of this special kind of cotton bred that are Machine/ and are only by hand/.
From what I understood, all we could properly infer is if commercially feasible/→ long/ and machine sprung/.
How is it granted to make a further inference that long/ and machine sprung /→ short and only by hand?
-----
This is what tripped me up and led me to chose E unhappily, and in error.
Green and brown cotton (making a further assumption that these garments were made from the recently become commercially feasible green and brown cotton) save the cost of dyeing, therefore would lead to less expensive garments than garments made from the new non-green/brown commercially feasible cotton fibre.
----
Any help would be much appreciated :)
#help For AC B, from my understanding, Some--> All. If some Brilliant People are Legal Voters, Professors and under eighteen, then ALL Brilliant People are Legal Voters, Professors, and under eighteen.
Is this AC incorrect, because it could be true, but not must be true?
----
And for AC C, it is incorrect because it's an invalid inference, correct?
As in A some B, A some C, therefore B some C?
or is it because the answer is different than a valid inference must be true:
A--> B/
A-->C/
------
B/ some C/
And AC C says (B some /C)
#help For E, even if it had said "people in the tourism industry would LIKELY never knowingly damage the seaside environment", thus, nothing to fear from the tourism industry, it would still be incorrect because the likeliness of a certain state of affairs - not damaging the seaside environment" is not the same as "not fearing the tourism industry", correct?