Bee -> sting once
Sting once
—————
Bee
A-> B
B
—————
A
A) Spring -> Sneeze nonstop
Sneeze
——————
Spring
C) Old + brittle -> move with care
/Move with care -> /Old + brittle
Negation: Old + brittle -> Move w care (still valid argument whereas the stimulus is invalid).
D) Only is G2
Ruin roof -> more thunderstorm
/Ruin roof -> /more thunderstorm
Just want to share my notes/thought process!
Cannot is G4 negate necessary
Good legal system -> well paid
Police well paid -> good legal system
Flips lawgic
A. E. Irrelevant
B. Must is a stretch, we dont care about them
C. Effective is irrelevant
D. Yes, it should be a NC but it switches to SC which doesn’t warrant the lawgic if NC is satisfied
Admin note: Edited title. For the community to better assist you, please include a description of your concern in the title. E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more
I thought this question was rather difficult but there is no explanation video, so just dropping my thought process/notes here. Please feel free to share yours!
P says ok eventually all mental stuffs can be explained in neurological terms
Explain mental stuffs in neuro terms -> knowledge (neurons and function, interaction, delineation of psycho faculties).
A. It supports the physicalist actually by trying to prove they are right.
B. It does describe
C. Not really, it didn’t use the 2 interchangeably
D. Why do we care about the purpose of this
E. Hmh that’s true, it talks about knowledge (which there are 3 but it only touches on 2).
Just want to share my thoughts and notes:
This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.
Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.
A. anticipated answer choice
B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole
C. Tailor is too details, not needed
D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"
Please share your thought process and how you get the correct answer!
I didn't get this question but I would love to see anyone's thought process and how you arrive at the conclusion.
Could someone explain their thought process in getting the correct answer? I debated between A and B and eventually settled for B because I thought the very last line is the Conclusion. #help
Hi! Could someone please explain why E is the correct answer? I would love to see everyone's understanding/explanation! Here is what I thought, which turns out to be incorrect but I still don't get why E is right.
PaI - Disagree over Interpret which news is newsworthy
S: Reporters pick which events they want to report (newsworthy) and for how long is the reporting, so they always interpret the news (preliminary)
Ramon: Reporters -> /Interpret the news. Once they decide a news is newsworthy, they better give me the full info.
So Sarah says the act of considering which news is newsworthy is already the beginning of interpretation, Ramon says the interpretation begins after a news is decided to be newsworthy.
A. Every time they report it? They might or might not, this is digging too deep
B. Sarah disagrees, Ramon agrees “once they deem a story to be newsworthy”
C. Irrelevant
D. Ramon no comment, he only cares about newsworthy
E. Ramon no opinion
My thought process in getting the correct answer:
High blood cholesterol -> increased risk of stroke by blood clots
Low blood cholesterol -> increased risk of OTHER stroke by cerebral hermorrhage (how? Low bc weakens artery walls, making them easy to rupture).
W diets better protect against cerebral hermorrahe (low bc) than non-Western
Assumption: W diets decreases low blood cholesterol (aka increases blood cholesterol, making the artery walls not weakened, less likely to rupture).
NC
A) Healthier is vague, we dont need this to be true
B) Anticipated answer
C) High blood cholesterol level PREVENT weakening of artery walls.
Negation: if high blood cholesterol doesn’t prevent weakening of artery walls (cause of cerebral herm), then high blood cholesterol increases (or has nothing to do with) cerebral hermorrage. This just wrecks everything the stem says, but it doesn’t tie to the diets argument part.
D) Who cares which one is more deadly
E) low blood pressure is irrelevant, were talking about blood cholesterol
Pseudo-PSA
Political self-determination from external force -> /truly free
Maintaining freedom -> political virtues earned during the struggle for freedom
The bridge here is about linking political self-determination from external force + virtues necessary for freedom
A. Not true, its the opposite
B. Who cares what other virtues they achieve
C. Free -> develop political virtues… maybe
D. Remain truly free -> political self-determination, but this is missing the virtue part.
E. Imposed?
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"
Hi all! What is your thought process/explanation as to why A is wrong?
Admin Note: Edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of stimulus]
Free will is not applicable in determining responsibility for all situations (its not a one size fit all equation).
We hold criminals responsible bc they cause damage out of free will.
We do not hold drivers (driving while heart attack and cause damage) responsible, even though the heart attack could be prevented from diet (free will).
A. Itself is not a conclusion
BC. Not “Should”
D. Not true
E. Maybe, saying that we do not apply free will equally to all situations (i.e both criminals and drivers under heart attack both stem from free will but they have different outcome).
Potatoes -> has solanine (poisonous in large quantities) -most-> solanine in the skin.
Domestic potatoes -> has small quantities (so not poisonous)
Wild potatoes -> poisonous level of solanine (must be in large number).
So peeled wild potatoes =safe= unpeeled domestic tomatoes
What to warrant that the wild potatoes fall within this MOST group where the solanine stays in the skin?
A. So the amount of solanine in the skin of wild potatoes is more than the skin of domesticated potatoes. So peeling the skin of wild potatoes wouldn’t make it safer to eat than domesticated potatoes? Not at least as safe as
B. So removing this means removing the poisonous part.
C. So the peeled wild potato has the same amount of solanine as an unpeeled domesticated potato. Yes, as safe as.
D. Why does this matter.
E. Size doesn’t matter, its the quantity of solanine.
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"
Economic growth -> Increase agri (+ keep biodiversity) -> abandon conventional agri
Conclusion Econo growth -> abandon conventional agri/modify agri
SA?
A. Increase biodiversity -> /Increase agri
Increase agri -> Reduce biodiversity this is not what the stimulus is saying so non sequitur.
B. This would place biodiversity back in the loop and make it relevant by connecting the pieces of the structure
C. But this is alr listed in the stimulus
D. We dont know this
E. Modify agri -> increase agri this flips the lawgic
Technical question: how to I access/edit the "i" box in the Question Quickview. You know how during BR we can use the box at the bottom to record our notes, then the notes are saved under the"i" button, when I glance over it and I can see my notes. But I cannot edit or copy and paste it at all. This is a problem bc sometimes after listening to the lecture, I realize my notes are wrong and I want to clarify/edit it, but I do not know how. #help
#help #help#help What is the difference between Must Be True and Sufficient Assumption? Something I notice is MBT question asks "properly inferred" whereas SA question asks "logically followed. It seems like SA is more specific than MBT. How do you differentiate between the 2?
Hi,
This question has a 5-star difficulty but it looks like there's no explanation video on this.
What is everyone's thought process on this question. Here's my reasoning for why it comes down to C and D :
C. Some parts of the rock was under water, some part on land. Which one do we know is where the C-14 were found from (if its the unerwater part then it goes against the argument, if its the land part then it supports the argument). This is just not enough to know. This could go both ways. BUT it does cast doubt on the result of the study, how do you know which part of the rock you got your C-14 from.
D. Among the C-14 that were found in this rock, a small amount of C-14 come from the atmosphere. Meaning the rest of the C-14 can still come from remnants of plants and microbes. Doesn't weaken the argument much, but it cast doubt.
I picked D but the correct answer is C. Can someone explain their thought process and why C is a better ac?
I thought E is the right answer because joyriding causes physical harm, whereas unauthorized access to hospital data causes indirect physical harm. I thought that this is more likely, bc his premise shows indirect physical harm (arguably if there’s harm to be proven at all, so what if they have access to medical records - doesn’t mean they’ll be able to manipulate it). #help