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?

With AC D, is it not true that Stones' data is based on contradictory data? #help

Can someone please explain how D supports the link between [emergence within ancient greek civilization of the individual] and [perceived personal autonomy in greek society]? how can we deduce validly that because there was an emergence of the free agent, personal autonomy was perceived? or am i thinking too deep post logic section...

@AlizaGGG that's what i did, so i am also curious..

@Charles_ I think what is confusing you is that the claim you have identified for the argument is that the claim is exaggerated. Rather, the claim is actually--from my understanding, so please correct me anyone if I am wrong--that "a fatal catastrophe is quite unlikely at any stage." The "exaggerates the risk" is a premise that supports his conclusion that the the backup system significantly decreases the chances of a fatal catastrophe. The first two sentences of the argument are the two premises, and the last sentence is the conclusion. By identifying the last sentence as the conclusion (and even by looking at the conclusion alone), we understand why the arguer thinks that the leading critic is wrong for saying that sending explorers with current technology is a bad idea. The conclusion itself also highlights the prime flaw is parts to a whole (by relying on the idea that every stage is backed up will mean that the entire journey as a whole is safe). I hope this helps!

#feedback I really want to see what the priority levels and difficulty levels of the lesson plan videos are, just as we see it for you try.