we don't know if these people know that etiquette helps people get along with each other. we just know that these people believe it. has no beneficial impact and that social harmony is good. we don't know if they know what etiquette truly is.

thus we can't say they have contradictory views about etiquette. the views can't be contradictory because for that they needs two views that are at odds with another. we only know that they at least have one view (that etiquette has no beneficial effects). we don't know if the people mentioned think etiquette has beneficial effects (which is likely not the case).

"They may be wrong about this belief, but that's different from holding contradictory views."

B is wrong because since we don't know if they know what etiquette is, and it likely is the case that they don't know, then it is improbable to assume they have respect for it. we only know that they believe something about etiquette that isn't the case (that it has no beneficial aspects), which is C. That they are mistaken about it having no beneficial aspects.

A- I actually didn't like A at all because we don't know if the artifacts in the stimulus are from the nearby riverbed. BUT given that it is the ONLY answer that is even slightly on the weaking scale as all the other acs are strengthening, it is correct as this is a MOST weakens the argument (as compared to other ACs).

What makes this weaken is that, assuming that the artifacts were from the nearby riverbed, now we know that the gold doesn't come from the mine. Both the. mine and the artifacts come from a different source which totally wrecks the conclusion of the argument.

B- possibly strengthens as now there is possibility that those gold sources from the artifacts were mined from the ancient mine when the artifact civilization was responsible.

C- possibly strengthens because possibility that the gold sources were from the mine because the construction of the artifacts came after the mine.

D- neutral, could possibly strengthens as because if the artifact gold ratios are from other artifacts, we still don't know the source of gold for those artifacts. it can still be the mine. then the source of the gold artifacts discussed would be the mine. also, like JY said, we don't know if the artifacts discussed are of the ones discussed in D.

E- Very much strengthening. Increases likelihood significantly that the gold artifacts were made from the western asian mine.

b) if S withhold -> assumes open

B says if assume open -> anyone never told. issue with b is that stimulus lawgic allows anyone to withhold from the cousin because S withholding info is a sufficient, aka only one way of the cousin not finding out.

The stimulus also allows for the opportunity that, even if others told the cousin, the cousin may not believe it unless S tells the cousin (aka S not tell/withhold -> cousin believes open).

c is wrong bec the amount of times using happy words for ex. not being in the same range as that of a different communication medium like email doesn't detract from the hypothesis, but more than that, it doesn't do much. so what if i posted on twitter 15 happy posts but was only neutral in email?

c would be correct if it stated that the person did not mean what they wrote. but if we can still assume that the happy words were meant even if those happy words are not seen on a different communication platform, that doesn't do anything

this question gives phenomenon + hypothesis reasoning. key words: "for...certain crops such ass" "limited area"

essentially we have to conceptualize what this explanation looks like applied to the stimulus. basically bumblebees see few plant species in a limited area such as cranberries and strawberries. honeybees see a wider variety such as cranberries, strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries. so we know then that in terms of certain crops such as cranberries, visitation of the number of plant species affects the efficiency rate of pollination.

understanding this leads to correct AC which is B. 'other than cranberries' threw me off but it is correct bec the number of plants visited outside of cranberries (foe example, only strawberries) does affect the pollination efficiency because if it was much broader meaning more plants, that would decrease pollination efficiency as seen with the honeybees (stimulus says that honeybees are less efficient because they see a broader areas and this bigger variety of species).

Why A is wrong: we don't need a new explanation/hypothesis for the phenomenon. we're already given that. this is seen with the 'if...' of ac A that demonstrates a if then hypothesis/reasoning explanation. also, ac A isn't supported by the stimulus. 1st of all, it talks about plant species in general. we only know about certain crops like cranberries. maybe there are species outside of cranberry like crops that this reasoning wouldn't apply to. maybe for mango like crops, it holds that the wide variety visited means more efficient. thus A is wrong.

C distorts the chain in the stimulus.

the stim reasoning says: (in context of such crops like cranberries) limited area -> few plants visited -> higher efficiency

AC C says: /limited area -> few plants

D is wrong bec we have no info about what makes a limited area more susceptible to having the bumblebee visit than honeybees. also are stimulus allows (maybe even necessitates) that honeybees and bumblebees both visit cranberries. all we know is that honeybees see more plants and in context of cranberry crops, this affects efficiency.

E allows for efficiency rate of honeybees and bumblebees to be the same because what if the likelihood of visiting the crop are the same? all we know that affects efficiency rate isn't the visitation of the crop itself (like E purports), but how MANY crops (such as cranberries) in an area are visited.

easier way to think of it/cheat code:

veers more on causal/effect than necc/suff. given that it is not a necc/suff argument, it's not B. which leaves A. 'will make a better leader' doesn't mean that he is a good leader. just that he is better than the other guy. also 'make' supports 'factor contributing' more than 'guarantee.'

B) maybe sarah does think that mature audiences are likely to believe that violence is sometimes an appropriate way to resolve problems but she think the benefit of watching them still outweighs. maybe not. she never comments on it. just because she thinks that mature audiences shouldn't have restricted content doesn't mean it's because they won't inappropriately take from the content. we just know that at the very least adults should have unrestricted content because it helps purge aggression. Same with Liang. Though he only talked about children, maybe he thinks similarly for adults. or not. we don't have the evidence to back it up.

C) Same reasoning as before. Maybe Sarah thinks that movies can cause violence, but the benefit of purging aggression offsets the cost of violence that does happen. or not. maybe acting out in violence is a way to purge aggression so it works in sarah's mind. we don't know though because she never talks about that.

D) works because both are talking about how violence has at least this one cause in this one demographic they understand (at least enough to make an argument for a position).

in this question, it's helpful to understand as two separate dialogues where the other person's dialogue doesn't influence the perception/understanding of the other's dialogue.

messy thoughts on my end:

we don't know what makes for an 'easier' time fishing. fishing near top might. be harder than fishing at bottom. no premise to support idea of ease in fishing. must be explicit to be supported.

E is correct because when reading the stimulus, we know that turnover happens in fall and late winter. logically, given that we are exiting summer into colder climates and nearing winter, turnover during fall would mean colder temperatures at top. this means that since coldest water will fall back to bottom in summer, and we know that there has to be a temperature shift for that to happen, the other turnover that happens in late winter is where the cold temp falls to bottom. but the weird thing is that in the conclusion, it says that it is best to fish in a shallow bay (where there is likely less water than say a far deeper lake, does this mean the water is going to be colder at top or bottom? if it's late winter and turnover is happening, then the water should be going to the bottom. BUT the next phrase says "or close to a surface." this means that the cold water is at the top. huh. so has the turnover not happened yet? since it wouldn't make sense that turnover has happened but the cold water is still at the top. is it because it's partially iced over?

and the conclusion also implies that bec of the close to surface, the water is at the top. but again, i thought that the late winter meant water going to bottom. for this argument to work and this conclusion to make sense, turnover hasn't occurred yet in this situation. the iced over means the water is still cold enough for water to be at the top even though it is late winter. that's why E is correct.

@shanumanu tldr: issue of all versus every and identifying how premises can also not support a sub-conclusion

Issue: the premises don’t support the first sub-conclusion. 

This is such a tricky question and makes me want to kms. But we persist: 

My perspective/Break down: all sides of an important story should be covered and no newspaper adequately covers all sides of every one of its stories. Ok, valid. Yeah WSJ will have some stories that may have some sides unaccounted for. Maybe that’s only 1. Maybe it’s 350. 

These premises should support the first subconclusion that some important stories would not be adequately covered if only one newspaper. But that doesn’t track. Just because WSJ may have missed one or 350 sides doesn’t necessarily mean that the sides missed are important stories. 

In the end, a reasoning question flaw is about how premises don’t support the conclusion, including the sub-conclusions. 

1. The argument confuses the inability to cover all sides of every story with the inability to cover all sides of any important story

This is what I was getting at. All sides of every story should be covered but there will be some not covered does not guarantee that some important stories will not be adequately covered. It could very well be that somehow, all important stories are adequately covered.

A mapped:

chance of storms (most -> ) days this week

storms -> temp drop suddenly

------

days this week (<--some-->) temp drop

Why A is wrong:

1) 1st and 2nd premises don't link

Leading to 2), Logically doesn't make sense. A 50+ chance of storm doesn't guarantee that there will be a storm, thus we can't draw the conclusion.

3) As per the stimulus, The front of some in the first premise should match the front of some in the conclusion. The end of second premise should match end of conclusion ( H <--some--> D --> WC. Conc: H <--some--> WC).

But, A doesn't match. While the end matches, the beginning of premise 1 is chance of storms and beginning of conclusion is days this week. Though you can switch the sides of a some, you can't switch the sides of a most.

Also, I wrote the conclusion this way with days in week at beginning rather than 1+ day in the week bec to me, it logically made more sense that 1) some days this week will have a temp drop rather than some temp drop will be in days this week because we also don't know if it is 1 or more days. Just at least one. Which is why days this week in beginning works, because some is at least one.

I used days this week instead of 1+ days to use as many same variables as possible. Though in my opinion, the most correct conclusion mapped would be 1+ days this week (<--some-->) temp drop so that the variable can be validly switched on either sides of the some to match the meaning/intent of AC A.

post watching expl:

-c is wrong bec "capable of doing good work" /= "will get good work"

-d is wrong bec invalid. Should catch this without diagramming. We know that X some Z all Y allows for some x in y. But with D, the last premise is 'every lake nearby is teeming with healthy fish.' That is not saying that LN -> HF. Teeming implies many, maybe even most (but that's a stretch). We can't validly say teeming means 'all'. At best this relationship would be:

minnow some lake nearby some healthy fish

Those premises cannot validly conclude some minnow to healthy fish.

@LowriThomas Really helpful!

@ConnerKline Really helpful!

-can't map premise but essentially saying confiscated wages is to fund victims.

thus con.: If confiscating wages (even if stealing)-> justified.

ac D) justified -> compensating ppl who deserve compensation. AC D does not link to conclusion. As conclusion starts with if confiscating, not justified.

Goal of q 15 is to support idea that confiscating burglar wages is justified bec it's to compensate burglary victims. So far, we don't have a principle that justifies this idea. AC D says if justified, then means of compensating those who deserve comp. But we need something that tells us 'if X, then justified.' None of the other answers really get to that except for C albeit it's not an ideal ac. C gives us a principle that determines whether something is justified. In this context, we can even understand it as the motive can tell us whether is something sufficient or not to guarantee a justified action. This falls in line with ''if X, then justified.' Arguably, it can also be understood as 'if not x then not justified' which doesn't get us to our conclusion, but the q is about what 'most helps to support' and since C allows for 'if x, then justified', it still works.

RRE question. which means there are two sets of facts that seemingly conflict but we would assume they wouldn't. how can we reconcile this apparent conflict/gap?

stimulus says that in industrial revolution, significant improvements was because of standardization and centralization of business strategies (essentially). Vut recently, already productive companies are not using industrial revolution strategies to further improve, but a different tactic-- autonomy in terms of decision making.

So there seems to be an assumption that the best way to improve productivity is industrial revolution strategies (centralization and standardization), but recent productive companies are doing kinda the opposite of centralization-- individualism and achieving further productivity. The important part of this stimulus is to catch the conflict. How is that this new strategy that is (kinda) opposite of I.R. strategy getting further improved productivity?

Before looking at the acs, I already assume that there could be a few reasons for this.

1) Maybe the already productive companies used standardization and centralization techniques which made them productive and reached the man productivity with those strategies. Now using an opposite approach would give further productivity.

2) Or, maybe centralization and standardization are also equally productive separately and this new business strategy of 'giving individual employees greater influence in decision making' still falls in line with either standardization or centralization (somehow) and that explains why they are more productive. Or maybe somehow the new business strategy falls into both categories.

Ok, these are thoughts I have (though I am unsure if I would have thought this far in a timed section lol idk). Regardless, timed or not, I'll look at ACs to see if any ACs share my earlier thoughts or new ways to reconcile the facts that I hadn't considered.

A) this doesn't really reconcile anything though. treats the business strategies of old and new as separate entities. the question still exists: why are new already productive companies using a diff strategy than the tried and tested one of the past? Also more importantly, AC A says "most companies". We don't know if 'already productive companies' fall within 'most'. Maybe they are an exception.

B) Doesn't reconcile gap between why recent productive companies are using an opposite strategy and being more productive. Maybe the industrial revolution strategies also allowed for job satisfaction increase too.

C) C is penning most productivity increase to not autonomy business strategy, but rather adv. tech like robots. If we assume the already productive businesses to be apart of this 'most increases in industrial productivity', then C would negate the truth of the stimulus that further improvement (a subset of increase in industrial productivity here), is due to autonomy business strategy. C changes the fact and truth of the argument. Now the improvement is because of robots. We would have to make an assumption (that honestly isn't valid) that advanced tech is primarily used to give more autonomy in business for C to work. Thus, C is wrong.

D) says that the old and proved methods of industrial productivity is being applied to the already productive companies where new autonomy strategies have achieved further improvement. But D doesn't answer why this new strategy is achieving further levels of productivity when we know that centralization and standardization (which isn't very autonomous) got dramatic improvements in productivity. D doesn't answer why the new strategy of already prod. companies have gotten such improvement from autonomy.

E) Here we see why autonomy works for increase in business productivity in already productive companies. This AC works 1) because it is tackling the right group (already productive companies). 2) Also 'broad application of ideas' falls in line with 'centralization of planning and decision making' to me. This corroborates one of my thoughts before looking a the ACs that the autonomy business strategies still have principles of the IR strategies that made it so productive. That is to say, the new and old business strategies aren't as dissimilar as maybe believed. That's how we can reconcile the strategies.

humankind is just a significant amount of people, not necessarily every human. so we would just need an ac where a significant amount of people are adversely affected by lack of access of water.

a is wrong because we already know population is increasing and yet we still have lots of water. if population were decreasing, even better, now even more water. so a doesn't affect our argument.

b) this says that different regions in the world have significant varying accesses to water. so some may have enough access, excess access, and not enough access. aahh.. some may not have enough access.... that means that water shortage is an issue for a region which would count as a significant amount of people. b weakens.

c) ok even if not all of earth's population adopts water conservation methods, we still have apparently a lot of fresh water unused. so why would we need to conserve? c doesn't affect the argument.

d) 'eventually outstrip' can mean decades or centuries from now. argument in stimulus is talking about near future. also the argument never assumes that 'eventually' we will still have water, so argument allows for d to exist.

e) honestly this on tricked me. but I did find it weird, the mention of different industries seemed random which was a red flag. Because the thing is, even if percentages increase quickly, we still have apparently a lot of fresh water unused. It could be that increase in water by industries is on the rise, but without knowing how much water we have available and how much water is going to be used by industries and people, we can't validly assume that the industries' use of water will be enough to harm humankind and cause watershortages.

I've noticed this with quite a few explanation videos. I wish JY would explain with at least 1-2 reasons why an AC doesn't weaken the argument instead of simply saying "why would that matter" or something similar. As students choosing the wrong answer, we chose it because we thought the wrong AC did attack the argument properly. It would be a much better video if he explicitly explained how the AC fall short of weakening so we can avoid similar wrong ACs in the future

#help #advice @Kevin_Lin

e) if they're running away from stress by avoiding thinking/addressing problems, how can we connect say that refusing to think leads to stress which leads to weakened gum immune system. to justify e we would have to be given the additional assumption that refusing to think about a problem they find stressful in of itself is a new stress.

@jujujube Thank you! This answers my concerns with D too!

@SydneyGriffith after working on this question for an hour, this finally helped me get it!

imo in terms of why i think b is wrong (after choosing it in test time), i agree with what the other comments say, but also consider that the stimulus still allows for person to fit into more than one moral theory. answer choice b kinnnddaaa allows for that too, but hinges more on the less likely side. given that this is a MSS, c supports the stimulus further.

36% success for this question but only 1:17 long explanatory video! Kevin or JY, could you please upload a more explanatory and in-depth video on how to approach this answer and how to avoid wrong answers?

#help #feedback

@ezrathevarasalingam256 my goat

@Elijah_Mize Reading the AC, I diagrammed E like this: E says /VBHR -> MPF + WDF +PASS SOON. How/why were you able to write E's diagram like [WFD + MPF + /VHR] --> Passed into Law?