- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Why does sufficient always lead to necessary?
E is really appealing given that "reader and writer becoming confused" isn't a far leap from "cannot be discussed clearly" and then it says that anything that is irrelevant should be discarded quickly. Its frustrating when JY spends no time on an AC that you were confident on and are looking for a thorough explanation as to how to avoid being tricked.
If Pat was a member, then E would be a MBT answer, right?
Q7 - Overly simplistic doesn't mean that something is wrong? If something is overly simplistic it can still be correct just too simple to reflect the reality of the phenomenon...
Surely "Avoiding" factual errors means not making them in the first place right? That's what threw me off of C. Overthinking seems to be my kryptonite but I want to blame bad phrasing...
In question 2, should this not be a valid chain?:
S -> /A -> /R -> J -> B
The answer excludes the Jon bit and just says S -> /A -> /R -> B
7 Sage forgot Jon just like D&D did during the Long Night...
I'm really tired of seeing the same canned response to "when can we get video explanations of this?". You call this unit "Foundations" But have no videos for almost any of the lessons. "V-1" is so different it doesn't feel relevant. Come on like how much are these subscriptions these lessons deserve AT LEAST detailed explanations after each one if not a video to walk through them. People have been leaving comments on here for weeks some even saying "I'm cancelling my subscription".
These lessons seem poorly constructed and all the comments indicate that everyone feels they are hard to understand or unnecessarily complicated. For example on #9 doesn't it make sense to point out
If corporations would reap benefits then consumers should presume deception
reap --> presume deception
/presume deception --> /reap
Why is this not enumerated in the answer? Is making a conditional out of the exception not helpful? It makes it pretty clear that if the exception is met (corporations would reap benefits) then consumers should presume deception