User Avatar
ellagrace88
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
ellagrace88
Tuesday, Feb 04

I don't understand the example of

improve -> mastery

because of the language we see that student mastered = saw improvements, emphasizing that if there were no improvements, we can assume they didnt master the logic because if they has mastered, they would see improvements.

How is it that the mastery is the necessary condition? Couldn't it be assumed that if you didnt master it its not necessarily true that you didnt improve? It doesnt say that mastery is the ONLY way to see improvements so it could be assumed that more things could lead to improvement, but IF you master, youre sure to see improvement.

Confirm action

Are you sure?