ur not alone my friend

holy shit during BR when i was reviewing it i knew i got it wrong and then once the flaw hit me i literally screamed like what the hell..... the subtlety, the cruelty... make it stop

question 13 was the worst explanation i have ever seen holy shit

Hello brother

#help

Would this be like a false causal chain? This is how I explained it:

There are 3 things you can do to reduce obesity. Reducing obesity is good for your health. Therefore, each of those 3 things will be good for your health.

Here you are assuming that every single one of the three things you can do to reduce obesity is by default good for your health. Those 3 things are crack cocaine, sawing yourself in half, and bulimia - they all reduce obesity by helping lose weight but they are all NOT good for your health.

X causes Y, Y is related in some way to Z. This does NOT mean that X causes Z.

Crack causes weight loss. Weight loss is related in some way to good health. This does not mean crack causes good health.

Regulation X causes less trade deficit. Less trade deficit is in some way helpful to the economy. Therefore Reg X will cause a better economy. Not true. What if reducing trade deficit means we just import NO more food. period. That will reduce the trade deficit but will it help the economy? Probably not since that will impact production, increase prices, people starve, lose jobs, etc.

Is this okay?

#help

Would this be like a false causal chain? This is how I explained it:

There are 3 things you can do to reduce obesity. Reducing obesity is good for your health. Therefore, each of those 3 things will be good for your health.

Here you are assuming that every single one of the three things you can do to reduce obesity is by default good for your health. Those 3 things are crack cocaine, sawing yourself in half, and bulimia - they all reduce obesity by helping lose weight but they are all NOT good for your health.

You were assuming that the causal chain falls forward.

X causes Y, Y causes Z. This does NOT mean that X causes Z.

Is this okay?

i almost read this as "90% of those who made a profit last year" /

dyslexia moment fr

9 minutes on this Q...

Got it wrong but then came back to it and got it correct. This is a stinky question.

7 minutes on this question. And it was just that simple. K.

#help is answer choice B a biconditional statement?

taxes increase ↔ proposal ?

holy shit this question had me dumbfounded..i assumed that when they said grain they were referencing rice. so like the price of grains like rice increased 100%, the price of bread 10%, cows 100%. I'm actually an idiot wow.

holy fuck i thought this was a NA question and i picked B... on BR i realized that i fumbled the question stem

agreed wtf these ACs are all bullshit. you require the same assumptions of all the ACs to weaken the conclusion as you do for AC B. This is fucked

I hate this test

Question 24

1. If you don't hold clear MB then you probably don't see history as WMT. ... If you see history as WMT then you probably hold clear MB.

2. More knowledge = less inclined to MJ

3. Conclustion: More knowledge = probably don't see history as WMT.

How did we jump from more knowledge to WMT? Need to make that connection.

More knowledge = less inclined to MJ. Less inlined to MJ = probably doesn't hold clear MB. Probably don't hold clear MB = don't see history as WMT. This makes more sense now and B is correct.

Tough part was identifying the conclusion. The conclusion here says the more knowledge about history you have then the less likely you are to see history as a working out of moral themes. Once you identify that, and parse out this garbage, you realize none of the ACs are relevant.

Ok let me try to parse this out.

Premise 1: John reads a great poem and thinks "this is contradictory"

Premise 2: The author would never want to communicate contradictory ideas.

Conclusion: What the poem MEANS doesn't necessarily show what the author wants to communicate.

The issue here is it's concluding something about what the poem means. What does it mean? Is it what the reader interprets or what the author wanted to write? Well this conclusion it is saying that the poem's meaning is NOT what the author wanted to write. The meaning is instead in what the reader BELEIVES it expresses.

What would fill the gap between what the reader BELEIVES the poem expressed vs the conclusion that the meaning is NOT what the author wants to communicate, but rather that the meanings is instead what the reader believes to be true?

Necessary Assumption: What the reader believes is what the meaning actually is! It's not that the meaning is in what the author intends, since the poem expresses something contradictory and the meaning would NEVER be contradictory. So instead, the meaning is in what the reader believes it to express.

This took some serious time to digest .. I hated it

wtf is scrap metal prices ...

wtf is scrap metal prices ...

I absolutely understoiod the flaw... she assumed that the 26 and 16% were not independent percentages and that the 30% threshold wasn't met.... that's why she invalidly concluded that the party wouldn't be viable.

but what if the 26 and 16 were entirely independent and that would mean that 42% of eligible voters are actually down to support via joinin OR via donation. that would mean the 30% threshold is met.

wow fuck AC E though bc wtf wording is that. i had to physically make it make sense for me like forced it down my throat fr i hate this

this whole lesson was so funny jy marry me

im fucking crying at the pics of bikes

6.999 billion... heh

#help what would a self contradictory claim look like? both in general terms and this claim?

this explanatoin was so funny lmfaoaoooo marry me

8 years ago you posted this but I am here to agree with you. This answer is DOGSHIT. What the fuck was this whole section? Hello? There is literally no fucking way you can convince me that he was assuming "therapeutic" effects. Well fuck me if they all started vomiting then that would also ruin the study. Placebo = no effect/fake pill and Medicine=at least SOME effects. Doesn't matter what type of effects and I dont think the other dude cares what type of effects he's talking about. The first dude is saying that if this pill produces any effect at all whatsoever, it will ruin the experience. the second dude is saying you are assuming that you know the outcome of the experiment aka you think you know what's going to happen. Whether that is that the drug works or does not work, I DONT GIVE A FUCK. He says that this first guy is wrong because he is assuming the results of the study. Why the fuck do I care if it's the medicinal effects or side effects? Doesn't matter. Dogshit question. I'd sue the fuck out of LSAC if this came to me. Goodbye.

Individuals vs non individuals?!!? never though that would be a gap/assumption id have to address... bye