hi kevin

on 4 and 5 cant you just slap the ol "it is not the case that..." on the front of each statement to negate it and arrive at the same meaning?

it is a little frustrating to use the same example over and over again for these techniques instead of new ones. i think already having an understanding of the rule of this example obscures the usefulness of the technique

I'm not super fond of the way that the video characterizes Chopin's goals in her work as "maybe a sort of perspective," while the text beneath the video just notes it as a perspective without the same warning. I think it leads to confusion for people who are reading the text.

examples

• all jedis are force users

• those who are not force users can't be jedis

• if someone is a jedi they must use the force

yeouch

could question 4 also be interpreted as

Things being compared: currently available instruments vs. more sophisticated instruments

quality being compared: ability to detect planets outside our solar system

"Winner:" more sophisticated instruments

or is flawed understanding of the point being made?

im thinking that a piece of contextual information that indicates another person's contrary argument preceded by "some people think..." would not be a concession point because it does not necessarily cut against the author's claim. so, a concessionary point is moreso a counter-premise, and not a counter-conclusion? otherwise, the examples we learned about in the previous lesson that start with "some experts say..." could count as a concessionary point. what does everyone else think?

this is kinda a necessary assumption question, in that the author's argument completely falls apart if "acting morally" does not mean "acting in the best interests of the public"

i dont know why i have such a hard time reading these questions. i feel like i keep making mistakes because i forget halfway through that i am supposed to be weakening the argument and i look for an answer that strengthens it. so frustrating

bruh i forgot we moved on to strengthen questions thats the only reason i got this one wrong

assuming each premise is true in each argument, the disney argument leaves no room to question how walt got his pass, the tiger argument offers only one supporting premise that leaves the conclusion vulnerable to other opposition, and the premises of the fat cat argument are all circumstantial and it would be hard to reasonably believe the conclusion with the given information

i fucking love sharks

avg of ~3 seconds over but 5/5!

did anyone else get the same question for q1 that was used in the unit lol

pat you tricky motherfucker...

5/5 and under time for each question! woohoo!

had the correct answer selected for a minute and a half and went 22 secs over bc i was unsure </3

im not sure if the questions are going to ramp up in difficulty in this unit, but i do wish that we had some 4 and 5 difficulty questions so that we can get some harder practice in while we are learning the specific question type

"You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child"

Actually 7sage, I don't think I will.