@MichaelWright how would you recommend applying this to reading sections/passages?

@JosephHindle that's a good point but i feel like irrelevant to the argument if we focus on the big picture.

overall, the gap is that the argument is that it is concluding something about computers based on a premise about humans. our answer has to address that gap.

i think it is a totally fair assumption that "displaying intelligence" means that they have "intelligence" in this case. otherwise, if we're not accepting that, then we have to make a kind of outlandish assumption that the computer can fake a "display" of intelligence.

if we zoom out on the bigger picture, answer E) is the only one that effectively addresses that gap

@OwenLavine if you look at the other answer choices, the "known cause" matches the strength level of the evidence in the others such as - "known to have been caused," "no independent evidence," and "no known meteor shower."

also, the conclusion also gives us wiggle room too - it says "probably caused," which hypothetically could still leave room for an unknown cause of perfectionist aliens steering the meteorite crash landings

B is right because it is saying, given the main support we have (the craters are different ages), nothing we have studied shows that these could be meteorite craters. which in turn supports the conclusion that it's prob caused by volcanic events, instead of meteorites.

@anureetbhatti192 that's exactly what the necessary assumption is calling out! the premise establishes that there is something different about the spread of literacy before vs. after creating a widespread Gen Ed system that makes people vulnerable to exploiters.

the correct answer highlights this assumption, effectively saying that something about the Gen Ed system helps people tell the difference (and therefore not be vulnerable). if we negate this, and a lack of formal Gen Ed doesn't affect the ability, then why would citizens be particularly vulnerable at that time and why would regimes possibly be toppled?

the author concludes that herbs should always be allowed to be prescribed. why? because there's only an upside, no harm will come to the patient

but what if there is a downside that's not direct harm? what if the herbs in conjunction with something are bad?

the wrong answers repeat things we already know - (B) saying that the herb's effectiveness is unproven doesn't give us anything different from "little firm evidence of medicinal effect"

(C) is trying to bait us into contradicting the premises (classic trap) but we already know that the herbs don't cause patients harm - "will not be harmed" - so the allergic reactions they mention have to be for non-herb medications

(D) is also trying to bait us into thinking that prescribers' evil motives could be a downside -- we only care about potential downsides to taking herbs, not about the motivations of prescribers. they could be running a MLM scheme for the herbs but as long as there is no patient downside and potential benefit, our argument is unconcerned.

(E) is attempting to bait us into thinking that there is no upside, but a placebo effect can still be a benefit - we don't care why the herbs cause pain relief, just that they do. there being a placebo affect doesn't demonstrate alternative harm/downside

Even though (A) seems weak at first, it's correct because it's the only answer showing a true downside to prescribing AND it doesn't attack the premises. it shows a causal downside: prescribing herbs means not prescribing BETTER medications

is there a lesson to refer back to on why we can't conclude "some" relationships from two sufficient arrows?

#help

does this still hold that B or C in A->B or C are jointly necessary?

@SaraMoreno let's say if it's a Friday, I'm going out or I'm going to bed early

F -> Out OR Early

if we split the arrow:

F -> going out

F -> going to bed early

this is incorrect, because it's saying if it's a Friday, both of those things MUST be true, whereas what the sentence is saying is it's one or the other

There could be a scenario where both could be true, let's say I go out early so I come home early. But it's a possibility and not a certainty, so that's why they're jointly necessary

@BrianGarrison here, "the only" has a different contextual context than "only"

"the only" is sufficient because it's not introducing a requirement, but rather a trigger

example:

only people who eat their vegetables get their icecream: here eating vegetables is a necessary requirement for getting your icecream

get icecream -> eat veggies

the only people who eat their vegetables get their icecream: here, people who eat vegetables is the sufficient trigger for getting vegetables, but there are other possible ways for you to get icecream

eat veggies -> get icecream