I am struggling to figure out what Link Assumption means! It is my top priority for improvement on my analytics page and I can not find any information on what this means #help!
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
If we took a sense of duty and moral obligation to be the same (which i get why we are not)I dont understand why E would be incorrect. In the video explination JY said that carrie would agree if this was the case (MO -> MG) but that Daniel would not diagree. I dont see how Daniel would not disagree. He explicitly stated that MO is not a sufficient condition for MG.
So if we are saying that even if sense of duty can be interpreted as moral obligation E is still wrong then I am very confused
#help #admin
#help im struggling to write the diagrams for causal logic. how would this one be written?
My mistake for this question was that I went hunting for an answer and when i didnt see it exactly I chose an answer that was similar to it. I thought that it would state something regarding the fact that one agrees that artists can express themselves and challenge a gvt and one doesnt. Instead the question focused on how subsidies benefit art and I totally missed it because I was too narrowed in!
I have been using a technique of making sure that a parallell argument uses the same argument structure (which Im realizing is incorrect). It drew me to the only answer that also said "if/then". I wont do that anymore I guess it is not important to make sure it uses the exact same structure?
Can we not quickly pick A for this question because it is the only answer that uses causal reasoning?
#help #feedback
I am confused because you said that answer c was wrong in that it just denies the conclusion, and we are instead trying to weaken the argument, but the right answer is also denying the conclusion by saying that there is an alternative hypothesis, no?
#help
Im not sure why it is so important to understand what kind of reasoning we are using. I havent found that very helpful in "lighting the way to the right answer choice". Could someone let me know what kind of method they are using in regards to what they do once they ID the reasoning??
Everything that I thought I new about conditional logic is gone
I dont understand why D is incorrect. In this argument, Costa says that assigning works of art into time periods is bankrupt. The authors argument is that because Costa does this with opera, his argument is invalid. But what if it is allowed with opera art? Wouldnt that mean that the author is assuming that what is true of art in general needs to be specifically true for both paintings and the opera? What if it is ok when applied the Costas operas because it is a different type of art. (oh wait is it because then the argument of Costa would not have said art, he would have had to specify painting?)
Anyone else following this crazy train of thought that I am having??
I need to remember that a PSA is helping to justify the conclusion! I went hunting for a correct answer that said that if the information is useless then it must be regulated (which would be the correct answer if this was a necessary assumption question correct?). This led me to answer choice D which I picked because I drew out the lawgic as follows; acceptable to have misinformation --> accurate information is not overlooked SO acceptable --> distinguishable. The contrapositive then being /distinguishable --> /acceptable. I used this to bridge my gap between it being allowed that if something is not distinguishable then it can be regulated because it is not acceptable (but this would have only been okay if the question explicitly said that if something is not acceptable then it must be regulated.