Hi I was wondering if someone can give examples, and ways to tell a difference between the two argument structures, and how to tell them apart in a stimulus.
Premise: B Conclusion: A -> C (missing assumption: B -> C)
versus
Premise: A Conclusion: B->C (missing assumption: A-B).
Im confused about Q7: Because its stated in the first paragraph that the major figures all worked under this premise " that art should incorporate images and familiar ideas as it commented upon the historic period in which it was created" - which led me to choose answer choice A. Am i misinterpreting the sentence. I figured that AC E was just discussing characteristics of murals more generally, and is true of any mural, whether or not it was a Mexican mural. #help
i've actively started telling myself, "who cares?" as i go through the answer choices.
i guess the lesson is, when in doubt always stay grounded in the conclusion
I had some trouble with this question. I understand why E is incorrect, however I was not very attracted to answer choice A because it discusses what is morally right. I felt as though the passage really only focused on what is considered morally right, and the things that make an action morally wrong may not be the same as what makes actions morally right. I really felt like morally right and morally wrong are two separate concepts, and not just opposites of each other. And more generally, I guess it is confusing when to think of two concepts of being related but separate, and when we can say they are true opposites.
Sorry if this was confusing, but if anyone has any clarity that would be a huge help.
I enjoy the new explanation thank you, its easier to follow along. are there any examples in which " all that is needed" or the word " needed" actually introduces a necessary assumption
so satisfying to see that you were on the wrong answer choice, then changed it at the last second to the right one.
For those who are also struggling to see why E is incorrect. E uses causal language to describe a conditional logic flaw in the stimulus, which also renders it incorrect
the word antique everywhere was confusing for my brain when i was trying to visualize the logic in my head
complete satisfaction when you cross out answers for the right reason and not just cause you felt like it... progress
I have been struggling with timing and anxiety with the clock running, which I feel like is developing because I keep over thinking even the simplest of problems. I recently took a preptest and got a 161 timed and my blind review was a 171. Pretty big difference, and proud of myself for the blind review score. Most of my mistakes come from logical reasoning. I actually usually have about 1 1/2 minutes at the end of each section.
Any tips on how to learn how to close this gap that have worked for you guys?
why isnt the "many" considered many when drawing the logic . In this sentence " A survey of 17 year olds has found that many who do not drink report having ...". And also which lesson this is to brush up on my formal logic
The way I tried thinking about this confusing problem is that the conclusion in the stimulus tried stating : Not ( A->B) (A and /B). The premise should have demonstrated an instance of that, but instead the premise was showing and instance of (/A and B). So it is flawed. (Am I on the right track?)
Is A->B A->C therefore, B some C a valid argument, since A-m-> B and A-m->C therefore B some C is valid.
This must be my 3rd time reviewing this question in the past 5 months and it still gives me trouble
I loved your youtube content! Excited you're here to share your knowledge!
Yesterday I thought I was done, today i see i am no longer done. But pleasantly surprised!
watching this it makes sense, but will i really think of all of this in under two minutes.... unlikely. I'll just see what answer vibes with me the best at that point.
for Q7: it states in the passage "there has been little research on long term purple loosestrife control", doesn't this count as explicity stated?