- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
OMG IT WAS AGREE, NOT DISAGREE.
No wonder I broke my brain trying to differentiate between B and C. Don't be like me, people. Don't be like me.
Assuming you meant WS and /LS, it's because we know two things that connect them. Nothing would connect WS and LS, but here's how WS and /LS are connected:
1. If you're on the planning committee, you don't live in the suburbs
PCM → /LS
2. But many people on the planning committee work in the suburbs. Remember that for formal logic, many and some are the same in terms of the relationships you can draw.
PCM ‑m→ WS.
When you have a format like this:
A → B
A→ C
You can say that "some B's are C's", which is the same as "some C's are B's" when we're talking about the ←s→ relationship. "Some" is bidirectional.
This also works when one of those relationships stemming from A is "some" or "most" as long as the other one is a regular old "sufficient → necessary" with no modifier like "some", "most", etc.
That's what would let us say "some /LS are WS", or in real words, "some people who don't live in the suburbs still work in the suburbs".
Does that help?
As a bit of #feedback on the explanation for E, isn't it true that E isn't even a flaw? If something happens, doesn't it logically follow that all of it's prerequisites happened? That would mean this applies to the condition under which the thing is happening as well.
That is what tripped me up as well and that's why I got this wrong. But upon a second read, POE lands you back at B. Truly, none of the other answers work at all. B is sketchy when you read it in isolation and I think it's good to be suspicious of it, but it's the only one that even stands up when you go and compare to the other choices.
Your reasoning would be right if this was a Must Be False question, but for weaken, it works because even though it doesn't necessarily weaken much, the others don't weaken at all.
I'm still shaky on C. I thought that for "weaken" we were supposed to avoid falling for answers that simply contradict a premise. Isn't that what C is doing?
Finally got one! I don't have to quit!
only 3 star
sigh.
Not sure what it is, I was breezing through everything until this section.
I don't disagree that E is better than C, but does anyone have a different way of thinking about it?
Should we actually be taking into account who the "speaker" is? Or was JY using the third grader example just to emphasize that assumptions were being made for that wrong answer?
I had the same thought process. My other issue was assigning the "survival" subset into the aggression subset, separately from violence.
Had I not put survival into aggression at all, maybe I would have just picked B.
Couldn't we just immediately throw (C) out without going through all of these considerations because it flips necessary and sufficient?
For Q1, I had interpreted C to be referring to efforts to adapt the law to social reality. If we change the law (i.e., the collective action) to reflect reality, the new set of rules would become less effective over time as the rules become dated and less relevant. This seemed like it would undermine the conclusion more so than the correct answer, which is focused on non-formalist systems rather than formalist systems.
What was my misstep here?
#help