- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Wooo spicy lesson! Love this!
Tiger: (Simple Premise + Conclusion) Most arts majors are very relaxed and will not study for exams. Not every university student studies well.
Disney: (Support + Multiple Claims/Rules) Track and Field athletes from around the country can now try out for the Olympic team through the open tryout programs. Those who have made qualifying times at tryouts will be considered for a spot on the Olympic team. All other Olympic team members can qualify through the IAAF World Championships. Andre is a member of the Olympic team. Andre has qualified but has never participated in open tryouts. Therefore, Andre must have qualified through the IAAF World Championships.
Trash Bin: (Evidence/Reasons to believe) Detective: The desk in the office and its contents are all ripped and beat up, including some important documents, ripped. Mr. Dog is in a corner, tensely with his tail between his legs the same way when he does something wrong. I hypothesize that Mr. Dog is guilty, having gone into the office and tearing it apart along with the documents.
So this whole thing is about assumptions! Clicked!
Hopefully, this breakdown will help someone make sense of understanding Step 1 A v. B in the lesson sentence. I think a really good thought exercise to do would be to try and compare the following two sentences. Disclaimer: I had some support from ChatGPT to explain the nuances but came up with both examples and broad strokes myself, any corrections are greatly appreciated:
1. A is much more closely related to B than to C.
2. A is much more closely related to B than C.
Using what we've learned about translating abstraction, I changed it to people:
1. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than to Robert.
2. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than Robert.
Understanding the relationships in each sentence may help to clarify its meaning and ambiguities.
1. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than to Robert.
The first sentence clearly states that Dave has a closer relation to Jessica than to Robert. So the comparison lies between Jessica and Robert as stated explicitly by the "to" which repeats in the sentence. The "to" highlight the relationships:
Dave → Jessica & Dave → Robert.
Therefore, we are comparing Jessica and Robert's closeness to Dave.
2. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than Robert.
The second sentence however can either imply Dave's relationship to Jessica v. Robert or imply Dave and Robert's relationship to Jessica. As we are missing that explicit relational indicator "to", we will likely assume that the comparison lies between Dave and Robert.
Bringing it back to the lesson, hopefully, it makes it clear as to why the A v. B is "sorghum v. most other cultivars of corn".
Note: What I noticed in doing the lesson exercise is I initially forgot about the "than to" so it made understanding the relationships confusing. Hopefully, this will help someone in their studies. :)