This has been awesome. I'm really hoping that these things become automatic as I go through drills and tests because it WILL be a game changer!

Maybe I overthought this one, maybe it's me applying my common sense to something that is designed for me to check that out the door... but E for me required an assumption that I wasn't willing to make. I can see that it talks about how financial problems creates a different set of problems, but like below I haven't been shown yet that not having a short life or having a life that is not pain-free is solving a problem. Maybe it is, it sounds like it. I also have my own argument for C how you could of potentially avoided the issue of social welfare programs if you simply gave them more funding or maybe someone had the foresight to give them progressive amounts of funding as you age.

These are all thoughts that were swirling through on blind review that led me to pick the same answer.

I guess maybe this is an obvious question but maybe not. For the last three examples in 6.1, 6.2. and 6.3, we saw that the context was not just labelled context or another person's position, but that there was an argument in the context. Is this something that happens often, and if so, should we have to worry about questions being asked of it, or should we focus on simply the task at hand getting the conclusion toward the main argument?

I convinced myself A was the right answer by completely ignoring the only and treating it as "IF". Gotta pay attention!

You know, I picked B because as much as I wanted C, I was turned off by how strong its claim was. Looking back, B was egregiously bad as an answer choice. I can't assume that they have long understood something to be important when theres some wording to suggest that this was figured out just now in the present day with "appears" and "study". But that suggestion even enshrined in assumptions too. Needless to say, the writers got me.

Proud of myself. Anytime I see science I go into a panic mode because I hate it, but instead focused on the structure and framework of the theory and the answer choices that were in the form of experiments/phenomenon and was able to get B immediately.

Good news: getting these questions right... but I'm doing it with 3 or 4 mins each time. I know I shouldn't worry about time right now but I can't help but think at some point hopefully it goes down.

I'm completely understanding this lesson, and I'm grateful that I am because I see a lot of people are not able to. However, I thought at least with the lessons in the beginning on being able to see the kernel of the sentence that this is essentially the same thing. Being able to weed out all the "extra for the moment" information and focus on the subject and predicate.

Am I wrong for thinking this?

I was between B and C and was very reluctant to pick C because of the strength of such conclusion comparable to B. However, I came to the same realization that JY did: if they don't behave differently, then they wouldn't be more or less likely to communicate. Made C the only answer choice that flowed from the passage.

I got 4/5 but the one I missed was the last one.. I read it as if the stimulus said "The facts described above provide the strongest evidence FOR which of the following" rather than against... Had that I read it, I ruled out B for being contradicting to the passage's facts...

What one word can change...

The way I like to see this to help me understand is reflecting it off of criminal law burdens to meet.

Beyond every reasonable doubt is ALL. Preponderance of Evidence is Most Probable Cause is Some.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden a jury can find. So, if the jury has believed a defendant is beyond a reasonable doubt of lets say Grand Theft, then we can also infer that they have met preponderance of evidence, and probable cause because they are lower burdens to meet and those have to be met already to get to the highest burden.

This may help some, for me in my criminal brain, it helps to visualize it like this.

Wow. I was so attracted to E but I made the same subconscious assumption that their preferences cannot change... and I literally picked C knowing that assumption too, but removing E left me with C.

Sheesh these weakening questions are kicking my butt comparable to MBT, MSS, and RRE.

Grateful that I went hunting on this question because I saw the assumption on the conclusion that was the answer choice!

So a way that I approached this question that may help other people from getting baited by B is this: the stimulus tells us that the SOLE purpose of copyright is to only encourage authors from getting money right and we are in charge of showing something that goes beyond the scope, beyond the intention of what it was originally supposed to be. For example (and please spare biases and give some grace): Cars were originally intended to go from point A to point B faster. Some people use cars for different reasons now: to run people over, to use it as an income source, go from point A to point B or to simply collect as an enthusiast. So if we were charged showing how the car has gone farther than the original purpose it was created for, then the reasons I listed would be examples. Same way here on the question, what are ways that copyright has gone beyond its original purpose. The fact that they last after someone's death has little bearing on financial gain for the individual because well they're dead who cares about money when you're dead and it was not in the original purpose listed in the stimulus.

I've honestly realized this myself within the last couple of weeks being in this course and even reading on my own time, how little I am focused on the complexity of the sentence now but my brain is slowly being trained to see the structure of it all in kernels yet not intimidated by it. I am glad that I'm slowly getting a chance at the cake now too. Hope to have more, if not all of it.

So I wrote out the logic for the question, but I guess in my logic I assumed already that the proposal would be met so I never added the third conjunction of the proposal. Would that be logically incorrect to assume that in general because of course here that assumption proved harmless.

I am so proud of myself... I always had a hard time diagraming unless statements, but for me the rule/exception framework always worked out so well for me to understand. I used it in this case and immediately inferred the restatement that was B.

Not me getting all of them right and convincing myself out of the right answers on blind review..... Sheesh.

Okay... so I LITERALLY made the assumption that if you are an actor, you MUST have a copy of the play because well.. maybe you needed to learn your part?!?!? I guess that must've not been reasonable given the 17th century. Otherwise, that assumption is what immediately tipped me over to E rather than C.

C could've been explained with another one which its answer choice provides a great segway: CNN.

I am not gonna lie to you: this lesson confused me because I had to be honest with myself. Subconsciously, we know that these things are not causes but correlations: there needs to be an explanation. For example, the concept of correlation does not equal causation was taught to me like this in middle school: There is a correlation between the increase in the crime rate and the increase in temperature. The inference here would then be, so summer is when the crime rate is the highest, and winter is when its at its lowest. There's a bunch of ways we can poke holes in this but this is how I tend to remember this concept with a silly example like this.

I had circled D first and talked my way out of it because it didn't match in my mind the "ideal" answer choice since it needed an assumption on Talbert's part despite the contradiction for Sklar.

Bias!

Josue [subject-noun] loves [predicate-verb] Chocolate Ice Cream [predicate-noun/object]