#help

This one was confusing. I chose C even though it overgeneralizes, similar to a sufficient, because I thought it was still necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Can someone help point out how my thought process is wrong?

B threw me off because we don't care if they used it. Whether they used it or not didn't change the fact that those claws identify them as tree-dwelling birds. This statement might support the idea that Archeopteryx could perch in trees, but the argument doesn’t hinge on how it used its claws. The argument focuses on whether the claw curvature is sufficient evidence for tree-dwelling behavior, not how Archeopteryx used its claws.

(C) seemed like a necessary assumption for the argument. The ornithologist relies on a comparison: Archeopteryx has claws like modern tree-dwelling birds, so it was probably a tree-dweller. If there were tree-dwelling birds without curved claws, this would weaken the argument, suggesting that claw curvature is not a definitive indicator of tree-dwelling behavior. Therefore, it must be assumed that curved claws are necessary for tree-dwelling to support the argument.

I don't know why this annoys me, but I've seen it happen across the board; even with the instructors, the default/assumption is that the person in the "argument/stimulus" is male. If I'm learning that nothing is assumed in the stimulus, why assume the POV is male? It honestly throws me off an annoys me.

#feedback For those who are confused, this video does not do a good job of explaining the basics of relative vs. absolute. I was so confused, so I did some Google searches and asked ChatGBT, and it gave me better background information/breakdown. I then came back to this video, and it made more sense.

The instructor assumes that "Thus, given that only a limited number of environmental battles can be waged" means a lack of resources. There could be other reasons why there are a limited number of environmental battles. This line of thinking is why I didn't choose B: They didn't discuss resources, and I didn't know I was supposed to assume that.

Tip: if these lessons confuse you, copy and paste the text into ChatGBT and ask them to simplify it and break it down in a way that makes sense.

This is the 7Sage's video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA--Mp0a6AA&pp=ygUaTFNBVCBQaGVub21lbm9uLUh5cG90aGVzaXM%3D

I got none of these right, I feel like each one follows a different rule :/

1) uses "Most" and we can negate this (as shown in the other examples) as "zero to half" or "at least half are not," so I don't know why that wasn't used to say "At least half of people do not like ice cream"

Not understand the difference between negating these two:

1) If more than three inches of snow accumulate, then classes will be canceled.

2) If the record sells well, then you will be famous.

1 Answer: Three inches of snow accumulating is not sufficient to cancel class. /(3 → C)

We could get three or more inches of snow accumulating and still have class. (3+ and /C)

2 Answer: The record could sell well and you could still be not famous. (W and /F)

Some world exists where the record sells well and you are not famous. (W ←s→ /F)

Why can't the second one say: The record selling well is not sufficient enough to be famous?

Kevin Lin has a video on negation that makes a bit more sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hao4RlRa0e0

Kevin Lin has a GREATTT video on Youtube about this as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkQ2ZRizWIE

An example I came across that helps me a bit:

In the context of combining statements containing quantifiers, you can remember the golden rule by thinking of the “4 S Rule”: The Sufficient of the Stronger statement must be Shared, and the conclusion is a “Some” statement.

Here’s how it works in practice – take the following example:

1. Everyone who is studying for the LSAT is stressed.

2. Some people who are studying for the LSAT are abstaining from alcohol.

In this case, we have an “all” statement (sentence #1) and a “some” statement (sentence #2). The stronger of those two statements is the first one, the “all” statement. The sufficient condition of the stronger statement is “studying for the LSAT”; in order for us to be able to combine these statements, they must both share that condition. Fortunately, the “some” statement also references people who are studying for the LSAT, so we’re good to go.

The conclusion, as we know from our golden rule, is going to be a “some” statement — in this case, that “Some people who are stressed are abstaining from alcohol.”

These combinations work because at least one of the premises is relatively strong. However, there are two combinations that will never, EVER work, simply because the premises are too weak to support a conclusion. You can never combine a “most” statement with a “some” statement, and you can never combine two “some” statements.

There are other variations that this video and Kevin's video breaks down that is super helpful.

I also struggled with this and still do. But maybe this ChatGBT response can help someone:

The major conclusion of the argument is: Supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation.

Breakdown:

Context: The sociologist begins by addressing the view of some economists who argue that unregulated markets should accompany democratic sovereignty because they allow people to "vote with their money."

Distinction: The sociologist then makes a critical distinction between two roles: the private consumer and the public citizen.

- As a private consumer, the question is, "What do I want?"

- As a public citizen (e.g., in the voting booth), the question is, "What do we want?"

Conclusion: The sociologist concludes that because of this distinction, being a supporter of political democracy does not necessarily mean opposing regulation of the marketplace. In fact, a supporter of democracy can simultaneously support regulation, as democratic values are more aligned with public decision-making rather than private individual choice.

Why this is the conclusion:

The argument leads up to the final statement: “Hence, supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation.” This directly refutes the economists’ position and the sociologist’s main point.

How are we supposed to know that the last sentence in the premise is irrelevant?

I said (D). The argument depends on the idea that, at high altitudes, the shortage of oxygen can impair judgment, making it more difficult for climbers or others to distinguish between ordinary mountain sickness and cerebral edema. If thinking processes weren’t affected, recognizing and treating the more dangerous cerebral edema wouldn’t be as problematic.

Was it wrong because this is too specific?