User Avatar
kevinwuphotography449
Joined
Sep 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
kevinwuphotography449
Thursday, Aug 31 2023

I made it halfway through CCv1 and switched to CCv2, but I tend to switch back and forth as I find it easier to understand some concepts with the videos in v1. V2 is more reading but its definitely faster and more straightforward. I would recommend using v1 content for videos if you're finding difficulty for some of the lessons!

User Avatar
kevinwuphotography449
Friday, Sep 29 2023

Hello Kevin!

Thank you so much for the reply and explanation. Your explanation clears up a lot of my confusion. Now I am a bit stumped on how to complete the entire setup in order to find the answer. We know that the conclusion says "Therefore, consumers who do not both to acquire such information are thereby behaving rationally.

To set it up as I did initially for the first part and now adding my conclusion:

rational to acquire information -> expects the benefits will outweigh

behaving rationally if they expect benefits will outweigh -> bother to acquire information

I understand group 4 negation but now I am a bit confused if I formulated my conclusion wrong and should instead say:

bother to acquire -> /behaving rationally

Thank you!

User Avatar

Friday, Sep 29 2023

kevinwuphotography449

Modifying the wrong thing for PT64 S3 Q26

I seem to be negating the wrong thing and was wondering if someone could clear up my confusion for PT64 S3 Q26. :(

The sentence that reads “It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefit of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so”.

I negated “it is rational not to acquire” when doing the group 3 translation like below:

rational to acquire -> expects the benefit of doing so will

rather than:

/expect the benefit -> rational not to acquire

In this case, would the “not” be modifying when someone is being rational? I really need to review my grammar…. I seem to be super hung up when I see the word “not”

Thank you!!

User Avatar

Sunday, Aug 25 2024

kevinwuphotography449

How to write conditionals with "without"?

Hi guys!

I am a bit confused on how to use "without" when writing out conditionals. I understand that you negate the sufficient when you see the word without, but what if the statement says:

John always sleeps without socks.

Isn't "always" a necessary indicator?

Would it be diagrammed as:

sleep -> /socks (this one makes more sense to me)

or

/socks -> sleep

Another example, I know that if the statement says: You can't come home without making money, the conditional would be written out as:

come home -> made money.

Just a bit confused with the "always... without..." statement I mentioned initially.

Thanks!

User Avatar
kevinwuphotography449
Wednesday, Apr 23

would love to join!

User Avatar
kevinwuphotography449
Tuesday, Oct 10 2023

#help

User Avatar
kevinwuphotography449
Tuesday, Oct 10 2023

Hi Alex! Thanks for reply. Would the reason I provided be correct?

User Avatar

Tuesday, Oct 10 2023

kevinwuphotography449

Confused with premise if it has "Most" and "Because"

Hi!

The premise for PT61 S4 Q24 says "Most long-term friendships begin because someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger."

I am a bit confused as how to map this out but I think I have an idea.

I initially thought the word "because" would make the idea following the word "because" become on the right side when put into lawgic form:

felt comfortable approaching stranger -> long-term friendship.

However, is it because of the word "Most" that makes the lawgic form become:

friends -most-> felt comfortable approaching stranger

Am I confusing "because, since, and for", by thinking I am looking for premise and conclusion when I already know what the premise is. In other words, am I mixing causal and conditional logic?

Sorry if this sounds confusing as I am having a hard time trying to explain my confusion. :(

Thank you!!!!

Confirm action

Are you sure?