Hey guys so I was doing question 4, LR2 preptest 25.
In this question the premise was
a->b->c
and then it concluded c->a
So the correct FMOR answer was
"the argument ignore the facto that some c's may not appreciate a's.
so c -some- a/
Is this a rule that can be applied to all conditional logic? A->B always can also mean B -some- A/?
A bit confused thanks. Hope this all made sense.
A premise and a general principle?
I just think of a general principle as a state set of beliefs? But I am not sure, and sometimes mix the premise and principle up in a question, although I treat them both as a premise.
anyone else getting this issue? It is just reversing what is on the flash card, and not providing an answer
Does answer choice B directly attack the conclusion?
I also got suckered into A, but see it really tells us nothing, as it leaves out everything to do with diet fat in other regions.
So to weaken something "not support" is to strengthen?
I initially skipped over b, under pressure due to the word data, but under the blind review, I notice that what they were talking about was data in the passage, and 1 thing remaining a mystery is directly related to 'not fully explain'
A good teaching point on this question is the change from context to argument, and the immediate conclusion that follows. I have got into a trap before, thinking that after one of those shifting words "but, however, although" a conclusion dont usually follow, but it can!
I went through the first 2 things on the course syllabus for grammar already, when should i attach a PT for some baseline stuff? and what PT should i do?
thanks everyone!