Did anyone else get every question right in this entire module and then get more wrong on the drill of 2 passages than they ever have in a complete RC section?? rip

If anyone still is looking at this, I just copy pasted into a Google Doc you can print: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bNXgBiEz_bv7ZtMILukKWOQSrqGpwlG0q-aFkyhZ-zA/edit?usp=sharing

Yes, I agree with the other commenter. Also...I know what you are saying about none being above 3. I noticed on the practice tests that that difficulty only goes up for RC questions (I THINK).

I picked C in 38 seconds and wrote in blind review that I was killing it...

It is definitely important to do that and you totally can customize your drills in the Practice section!

#feedback This is silly feedback, but in the written explanation there is a typo in the line: "I say 'kind of' because even if we flipped th bridge around, it’s still not necessary." ("th" should be "the")

Does anyone else get all the 4-5 difficulty ones correct and under the target time but struggles on like 1-2 difficulty lol?

#feedback I feel like the passage difficulty on this one should also be a 1.

Got this wrong because I ignored that it was an EXCEPT question and on BR somehow... ugh so of course I picked the answer choice 0% of people chose.

First one I got wrong in this section and my first note in BR was I don't like any of the answer choices and E- immediate elimination lmao

#feedback This is such a minor suggestion, but I really like when the videos have markers/timestamps for when certain answer choices are discussed (which this video doesn't have).

Lol I disagree...I feel like these are not as clear

I got this right by rejecting the implication that growth of plankton had anything to do with decaying plankton. Like I had:

AgRun--> 2xPL--> growth at surface

SEPARATE from the long chain:

decaying plankton--> floor--> bacteria eat--> consumes oxygen --> depletion --> fish die

Is this wrong to do?

Maybe it is just because I am not great at linking, but I used slightly different, simpler lawgic (or at least a different format) and got the same answer:

ECC= exact caffeine content

HI= health improves

ECC--> easier limit

easier limit HI

And then found the correct answer...

Is this too reductionist? Like am I ignoring important links?

Okay for this one I just fully misread the entire stimulus and thought everything after "But" was the main argument.

I quickly got this one correct in Quick View before seeing the video. I completed foundations, and recognized what I was supposed to apply, but I find myself just skipping over all of those steps because it is really intuitive. Does anyone else feel like this/should I be applying techniques more consistently?

I am so upset because I wrote out the entire "full" stimulus and first two answer choices before it was revealed that it wasn't the full stimulus... RIP

You are a hero.

I feel like nobody is going to understand this but I just figured out that J.Y. sounds so similar to Martin from Slushynoobz. Maybe I am crazy...

Yes

It used both rules...at least that's how I understand it. The Group 1 rule says that the part after "any" is the sufficient (left) part and the Group 2 rule says that the part after "must" is the necessary (right) part. Here is how I wrote it out:

"Any (S) valid moral judgment about a particular action must be (N) formed on the basis of its consequences."

VMJ= Valid moral judgement about a particular action (sufficient)

FBC- Formed on the basis of its consequences (necessary)

VMJ--> FBC

/FBC--> /VMJ

I hope this helps!

Oh good I did the exact same thing.

Okay I had the same qualm as the other commenters before me. In line with the negative comparatives lesson, this seems to be a really clear example of one of those either/or situations. In the first example that lesson used, "no more" was also used. This is what I wrote for the question and (give or take a few wording changes), I really think it is correct:

No statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly.

1) Humans acting selfishly (A) v. Humans acting unselfishly (B)

2) What occurs more often?

3) Either/or...either humans act equally selfishly and unselfishly OR B wins

^I reason that A CAN'T win because the comparison explicitly states that no scientific evidence has confirmed that humans would act more selfishly than unselfishly. If the "2" in this case is "what occurs more," A can't win.

Okay I got these all right essentially besides stating that "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" in the last one was a sub-conclusion instead of premise. But from the video...I see how it is a premise because it supports the main conclusion at the end.

#feedback I think you should have reordered some of these because they were very obvious. Previous lessons taught that conclusion and premise can be in any order, so I thought the premise--> conclusion format was oddly simple. Also, I went further in defining fact v. rule premises because that was super helpful in the Disney example.