Hey guys, really interested in getting a study group going! I study mostly at the UBC Irving Library in the quiet room top floor!

#help

where are the lessons that go over words like 'most' and theyre meaning in LR, as JY explains in this video?

#help

Hi I chose C and it was between C or D. The reason for this was because it never stated anywhere in the stimulus about effectiveness and less visibility. It did however state that these nests were well hidden.

My question is, when is it appropriate to make such inferences because it seems that for some questions, JY will say dont make assumptions and then he will make inferences in question likes these. When are these inferences appropriate and how can I know when to make them?

#help

hi I chose D.

I labelled the conclusion as, "the welfare state.... beings are unselfish" when it should just have ended before the word 'because'. I am having trouble identifying the conclusion.

I understood the content that was being said but when I saw A as an answer choice I thought it was immediately wrong becuase it did not have any substance to back it up. D was better but I understand that it only reiterates the preimise(s).

What resources can I use to help me identify conclusions/premises with precisions? Becuase all the answers I have gotten wrong stem from this and I keep labelling entire sentences as conclusions when only part of those sentences are the conclusion and the rest is context or premise(s).

#help

Hi, i was between choosing E and D and chose E.

The reason being that I thought the sentence, "reason plays an essential...." was the conclusion and not "that very dispotiions....', which JY chose.

As taught early in the course, I use the why technique. I ask myself why is this person telling me this and what are they pursuading me of. But it seems you can really ask them for both sentences. I know that 'but, although, however' are key word indicators but I thought they only introduce the authors argument and not always their conclusion.

To me I am confused because when I ask myself why and what the author is persuading me of, it just seems to fit with both sentences. Can someone please explain how do I concretely point out the conclusion with absolute confidence?

#help

Hi, I am having trouble understanding why C is correct. It just seems way to far a jump to start talking about the cost of stone and canvases, when they arent even mentioned.... so you basically have to start making assumptions. While I chose A because, although I still had to make an assumption/correlation between increased funding and innovation in painting, it still seemed to be more relevant to the question at hand.

Could you please explain why A is wrong and C is right?

#help

the conclusion is "so every year it will be necessary for all high-risk individuals to receive a vaccine for a different strain of the virus." Then it is backed up by various premises.

I chose answer C and as JY says, you must pick an answer that would fit well with the premises and bolster the conclusion to be true.

In my mind, when I pick C, I think that because it says no vaccine for influenza protects against more than 1 strain, it would then back up the conclusion that all high risk individuals need to be vaccinated every year because there is no one vaccine that fights all potential viruses.

I am just having a hard time understanding why answer D is correct. lol sorry for the ramble/thought explanation but I got killed by my first diagnostic and still grappling with how D is correct over C.

#help

I dont understand how the first sentence vs the second is not the conclusion, even with JYs explanation! The first and the second both seem to have support.

the technique of asking 'why' and then finding the conclusion seems to work for both the first and second sentence.

This one is definitely difficult for a Q1.

After doing blind review it helped me understand why C is correct.

When you map this out, it should look like this (/JCA -- > BLS) [judge cant answer --> bad legal system]. However, at the end of the stimulus, it then says, ".... there is little reason to suppose that there is." (referential phrase about the legal system not being bad). Thus, we can use our map, and use the contrapositive. /BLS --> JCA (not a bad legal system --> judge can answer) because that is what the last sentence in the stimulus is implying, that the legal system is not bad, therefore judges can answer. That is why C is correct because it finishes our map and says that judges are qualified to decide upon gov decisions. This is the main point of the stimulus.

#help

Hi i got this one right but im still confused as to why B is wrong because i thought we arent trying to attack the conclusion and even if we are asked to weaken the question then we dont necessarily have to weaken it if it stays the same?

#help

Hi I read this question as a causation one, in which cows milk had no relationship with getting colic in babies. Since I read it as a causation question in this format, in which there was no relationship, I chose A because I saw 'twins' as introducing a third factor or (c) into the equation that could introduce a biological explanation for colic. I now kinda see how it is quite an assumption but for some of these past questions, it just seemed reasonable, since we have been making certain assumptions in some questions.

Can someone please explain why this reasoning is wrong and how I should be approaching these questions because this set killed me.