this is super helpful.

which lesson would you advise is best for becoming a pro at negation?

Could someone give a quick summary of a 'necessary' cause, in the context of informal/causal logic? My understanding is something i's a necessary cause if the effect is present. But does it need to also be the only necessary cause? Or can there be multiple necessary causes for the same effect/outcome? My guess is yes, but want to check.

Any useful examples would be v helpful!

In the text summaries, giving alternative phrasing to show how the answer choices could be correct are v useful (e.g., here is an argument that (E) would accurately describe). I often struggle most with understanding the phrasing of the answer choices, so examples are useful - thanks!

Something I realize I was getting wrong this whole time... the phrase 'how does the argument proceed' made me think 'what will the author say next'. But I think we need to describe the techniques or strategies used in the argument itself (self-contained in the stem...) - if I'm wrong, please let me know!

I'm sometimes struggling to see when a premise could or could not be a major premise/sub-conclusion...

Is "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" not a major premise/sub-conclusion, despite being the cause & effect in the stim's causal chain?

Also, if there is a sub-conclusion in an argument (and that's the excerpt's role) are there general ways that the answer choices could be phrased?

RE "Deconstruct the argument through the causal and moral frameworks." Just wondering which lesson talks about deconstructing an argument through 'moral frameworks'? (last line on page) Or if someone could explain that would be great!

Could someone signpost to the lesson looking at prescriptive / descriptive arguments, and how this is helpful when looking at answer choices...

I find the diagrams helpful, especially when linking different question types together :)

Just to confirm.... is this rule sufficient and necessary? "Rule: the value of a diamond should derive solely from the aesthetic pleasure it provides."

Or, in the example, is it only the rule "the amount of aesthetic pleasure that a diamond provides is relevant to the value that it commands" that is necessary (but not sufficient)?

Is there an earlier lesson that talks about prescription-to-judgment inferences?

Useful summary!

I'm still a bit unsure about why D is a more reasonable assumption than E. i.e., it's more reasonable to assume the patient would worry more if told to sleep more vs. they aren't sleeping because they have daily nightmares.

@RyanAlexander oh that shrimp question!! I had it during an early PT and wondered how id ever pass this test.

@ctrue22 same, I also find highlighting key terms helpful, especially when it's a more complex topic with long unknown words (e.g., in biology)

I got the right answer, but 5 mins over time... I'm curious about tips/tricks for doing this type of question quicker, as I struggle to do it w/o diagramming.

I got this question eventually, but was 5 mins over the ideal time.... I'm a bit surprised it's a difficulty 3 given the diagramming - are there any tips for completing it quicker? Would you start from identifying the conclusion, diagram that, look at the answers, and work backwards or diagram everything in order first?

Can we negate causal claims? If so, how would this look in Lawgic? I have notes for taking the contrapositive vs. negating conditional claims but not causal...

I got this right but took longer than needed... hoping to get some tricks on how to speed up as the diagramming takes a while (but I struggle w/o it)

Hi! I chose B... so Lyle says: "Lyle: Admittedly, modernizing the language of premodern plays lessens their aesthetic quality, but such modernizing remains valuable for teaching history (conclusion)" and Carl says: "But such modernizing..." - When Carl says "such modernizing" I assumed he referred to the entire clause by Lyle (i.e., modernizing the language of premodern plays lessens their aesthetic quality but is still valuable for teaching history). This is why I inferred that when Carl says "such modernizing", he was also referring to the fact it lessens the aesthetic quality. While both Carl and Lyle agree on that, I thought the the point of disagreement was that Lyle thinks it's a worthwhile tradeoff and valuable for teaching history vs. Carl who doesn't.

Could someone clarify why I can't make this assumption? Thanks!!

I don't think the Fact v. Belief. v Knowledge link is working? Wondering if the info can be found elsewhere (if so, please signpost!)

These videos are really helpful - I'm not aiming for quite as high a score (although obviously that would be nice!) but the message around not giving up, and having those periods of setbacks is the main takeaway.

I'm slightly older (mid/late 30s) and would find it helpful to also have a video or two from people coming back into study a little further from undergrad days.

@ColinErickson thank you!!

It would be useful in this summary to link back to the 4 competing hypotheses and evaluation metrics... I felt it was pretty structured for the first part of the module but then got a bit less so after discussing the 'ideal experiment'

@kimwexler I don't think it's anything to be embarrassed about... I have been dipping in and out of the curriculum for a few months. I made a ton of notes, which for me is helpful. Originally I was trying to put in several hours at the weekend only, but I find it better to try and do an hour or two each day, and I catch up with any work at the weekend. Totally depends on your schedule tho... I find it helps to do little and often.

It would be helpful to also frame this walkthrough alongside the learning from previous classes about the 4 competing hypotheses and the ways to evaluate causal arguments (e.g., chronology, causal mechanisms etc). I think that's what is being discussed in the final paragraph ("alternative causes") and some of the comments in this Discussion thread have been helpful for this.