- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
glad to know that @MichaelWright is also a tomdaya fan (unwarranted assumption, possibly invalid inference)
Argument essentially is that situational factors explain code switching for the most part, code switching can sometimes be explained though by rhetorical factors.
Given that the question is about paragraph 3 which is about rhetorical factors, to weaken the author interpretation, should prove that situational factors WHOLLY account for code-switching or that rhetorical factors play no role.
A: correct because here code switching happened only because situational factors.
B: strengthens the paragraph 3 statement/conclusion that "situational factors do not account for all code-switching." Allows for author interpretation to still maintain validity unlike A.
C: Author interpretation never claimed that if the family wanted to express intimacy and humor, it was only through/had to be through Spanish. C doesn't change anything.
D: Same with C. Also we know that the family speaks primarily in English so this is consistent with our expectations.
E: Tricky but the thing is is that the family never even realized they spoke in Spanish to begin with prior to the research so this is expected and accounted for.
C leads to opposite of conclusion. if you contrapose C, no comprehensive solution to problem of pollution -> no nations are willing to abide by international law. but that makes the conclusion a starting premise. while it's invalid, it could be true which means it is not a necessary condition.
whereas B where is you negate it, no nations are required to give up some of their power, then that renders the 'few nations would willingly give up their power over their own industries' completely useless. if that clause is rendered useless, i have no reason to believe the conclusion.
the fact that I could have gotten this right if I knew what outpatient treatment meant. LOL. you learn something new everyday.
@Kihla333 The second question to ask oneself is great advice. I need to start thinking about whether my ac is because the ac is answering the question at hand or just an assumption that I have that doesn't actually have bearing on the stimulus. Thanks!
D) Art forms that must be examined for an extended period of time in order to be understood are essentially temporal.
Two ways for this to be correct:
Replace the ‘that must be examined for an extended period of time in order to be understood’ as ‘most art forms’ or ‘poetry and music’ to equal stimulus
a) ‘Must be experienced in a fixed order and over a roughly fixed amount of time’ must equal ‘must be examined for an extended period of time to be understood’ (which stimulus does not support. D does not have ‘fixed order’ not does extended period of time = fixed amount of time).
AND b) Switch the clauses in D so that it arrows from temporal to examined. Currently opposite which is a necessity sufficiency confusion.
Tip: even if there is a ‘must’ clause, if followed but ‘are X’, then the must is the sufficient condition and the clause following the ‘are’ is the necessary condition.
maybe this is the wrong approach but in evaluating e, i thought this way to help cross it out:
not getting benefits not necessarily = harmful. argument says that never getting new nightclubs could be harmful. so we would need something that says that no new nightclubs is harmful. here harmful is a synonym for bad so it works.
2 different tricks on how to approach this problem:
1) likedavidbear0169, I used the verbiage 'consequently' to figure out how to map it. also after reading kevin's analysis, I see that 'until' introduces our necessary claim, but as 'improved to recognize and utilize' is a negative claim where if this doesn't happen, then accurate translation doesn't happen, this makes it a negative sufficient. just like 'without' (it is also in the group 3 translation).
ok so. we know that '/improved to r&u' -> /accurate translations. so should we just then link up the support at beginning of chain like ac D? no! how do we know this? because of the verbiage 'as a consequence.' As a consequence is directly referring to '/distinguish' and linking it to '/accurate'.
Consequence of premise 1 + until premise 2 + ultimate ending of premise 3 together means that until premise 2 happens, the consequence of premise 1 is premise 3 (/accurate translations). If I were to put /distinguish before /improved to r&u, that would mean that /improved r&u is a consequence of /distinguish which given the verbiage explained earlier, is not the case at hand.
2), perhaps more simple--- though I'm not sure how applicable this would be to other questions-- is that premise 1 is a negate necessary and premise 2 is a negate sufficient. we can kick up the computer VR tech in the domain leaving us with just 'cannot distinguish' which is a negate necessary clause. since the second premise also refers to the computer VR tech, we can kick it up in the domain leaving us with just the negative sufficient condition of 'until improvement in utilizing and recognizing gr, and sm..' this perfect creates a negative sufficient that connects to a negative necessary that ultimately leads to the end of the conclusion.
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.
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.
given that the question stim says a "statement of a position [that functions]" and we know that the psychologist is talking about that view mentioned in the stimulus as the subject of the entire argument, the psychologist goal then in discussing the subject/view ultimately isn't to say well yeah it's actually well intentioned. no, it's that, though it may be well intentioned given that it is laudable, it's actually pretty dangerous! and that is the ultimate conclusion (the drawbacks of this view) that the psychologist is trying to discuss. thus D, as there is a serious flaw at hand despite how it is laudable (the value here).