- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
The way I was able to eliminate A was focusing on the word "habitat." Just because you are able to preserve the habitat doesn't mean that you are saving the species. So it really doesn't do anything for the argument. It might actually strengthen the argument, because despite being able to better preserve the habitat, the rate of extinction is going up.
I narrowed down to A and D but chose D because I conflated the idea of often with most. (often is closer to being some than most apparently). After thinking about the statement, "wealth is often harmful to people," I came up with this explanation to understand it. Let me know if there's any flaws in my reasoning.
it obviously doesn't make sense to say that some wealth are harmful to people in the context of the stimulus. It doesn't make sense because that requires identifying what kinds of wealth we are talking about and that is not stated in the stimulus.
but, it makes sense to say sometimes, wealth is harmful to people.
so ( W --> H), and this conditional statement is true sometimes.
To say that wealth is often (sometimes) harmful to people is like saying, sometimes, W --> H.
and the other premise states that good things cause no harm at all, or if good thing then no harm.
since the statement G --> /H is true every time, we can then say that Wealth is not a good thing to draw a valid conclusion.
Whenever I feel defeated, I tell myself there is always something good coming from this seemingly bad defeat.
Only fight that matters is on the test day and the thousand defeats along the way are only going to make you stronger and smarter.
Dont focus on the results right now, focus on the process and cherish the grind.
Take a knee and reset your mind. Go out on the attack.
hwangjun88500
conditional translation: any student will be served well in later life by any philosophy class.
for statements like this, when there are two sufficiency indicators,
can they have two possible translations?
If student, then he or she will be served well in later life by any philo class. ( S --> SWBPC)
if philo class, then will serve any students well later in life. ( PC --> SWLL )
the statement is from PT39, Section 2 Question 2.
it's a flaw question and the statement itself is not imperative to solve the question, but it did make me hesitate during timed PT when I tried to translate them into lawgic.
is it Some are not A and not B?
A --> C
B --> C
/A some /B
I was trying to translate this into english and was having some trouble.
for example,
all jedi use the force. all sith use the force.
if you are not a force user, you are not Jedi and not Sith
so..
some are not Jedi and Not Sith? ( /A some /B) is that correct?
On PT 35 S1 Q15,
Conclusion: We should be skeptical about the magazine’s conclusion.
Premise: The sample is unrepresentative and the question is biased
answer choice B contains Most (the conclusion drawn in most magazine surveys have eventually been disproved.) and JY shared that it provides little bit of support to the argument.
my question is,
is it always safe to assume that MOST provides little bit of support for strengthening question?
how about for SOME?
does "likely" translates to Most?