#feedback. at 23 seconds, captions read "as a corp, which currently owns a majority stake, has steadfastly refused to sell." It should read "Azedcorp, which currently owns a majority stake, has steadfastly refused to sell."
#feedback The captions at 4:42 read "What kind of plant cut into this upset?" when it should read "What kind of plant cut into this subset?"
Hi all. How do you work causal reasoning? I understand the flaws and whatnot for the most part (ommited options, such as no relationship, new factor, backwards casuation, etc). but for those good at it, what's your process like? how do you reconize a CR question and go from there? Thanks.
@James D fails for two reasons. First, structurally: D only says most people seek out reviews before viewing art, so it makes a claim about exposure (whether the opinion reaches someone), not about merit. Even if we granted D as true, we'd still be stuck with the same unanswered question: "why would a change in pleasure mean a change in merit?" Second, on realism: the conclusion says merit "can depend" on critics. The argument is making a possibility claim, not a claim about what happens for most people or most of the time. So the argument only needs one instance where a critic's opinion reaches someone and shifts their pleasure; it doesn't require most people to actively seek out critical reviews.