If I struggle with the context/strategy switching from one section type to another, is there a way to practice that other than the full length tests? Like if I wanted to do a 27Q RC and then a 26Q LR, or even two RC passages and then immediately go into the first 15 LR?
Seems like only option would be to start and not finish a prep test, but then it would mess up your analytics.
After thinking about this for a while, I've concluded that I'm comfortable saying the reason this AC is correct is not because there is a causal relationship (I also disagree with the explanation video about this) but rather because a correlation is evidence of causal relationship. This does not mean that correlation proves causation, just that it offers support. The stimulus indeed presents evidence that cholesterol contributes to heart disease, it just doesn't present sufficient information to prove it contributes.
P1) C corr HD
P2) DC influence C
_
Conclusion: DC doesn't influence HD
Analysis: There is a flaw in the argument in that they did not explain why they are presuming that dietary changes known to influence a trait correlated to HD will not influence HD.
Correct Answer C: presents evidence that C causes HD (yes) and ignores that evidence (also yes)
AC C accurately describes the stimulus, and it is reasonable to consider ignoring a supported alternative explanation as a flaw in an argument.
I hate this question lol.
#feedback #help is this a fair rationale?
or continuous proportionality vs binary comparison is how I thought of it. correlations can be binary.
in the sense that an argument is a relationship between a premise and conclusion, I would say so. If it only speaks to a premise and is completely irrelevant to the conclusion then I don't think it's even part of the argument -- just a distraction. If it doesn't offer support to the conclusion it's distraction.
thinking of this as "which of these answers would completely destroy the argument if not true"
Thank you this is exactly what I was missing. Don't think the video explanation provided sufficient justification to cross out B (get why E is correct, but did not see why B is incorrect). Present progressive tense in english can refer to future tense, and there is and assumption in the application that you can use the national avg instead of avgs from individual stretches, so this would have provided support if not for the lack of modifier specifying subset.
Or at least that was what my brain needed to feel better crossing off B.
Doesn't B provide reasons to believe an alternative hypothesis (that something else eliminated the diseases) is false
#help #feedback
I have the same question -- #feedback it would be nice if this was explained in the video since it's one of the presented answers.
#help
Why do we even need the subconclusion 3? Don't 1,2,4 sufficiently support 5 such that it's a valid argument without 3 being stated? You could also take 1,4 together and get a different subconclusion (say, 3b) that All dogs are cute, then combine that with 2 to get 5. But neither needs to be stated because both 3 and 3b necessarily follow from the premises in 1,2,4. Perhaps will learn more about significance of having subconclusions, but for now seems a redundant summary made for clarity in argumentation. Is that accurate, or is there a validity reason it's necessary to explicitly spell out a sub-conclusion?
This is maybe a little out of left field, but an analytic leveraging PCA (principle component analysis) to bucket 7sage users and then suggest drills based on classification seems like conceptually it could really helpful in identifying what to spend time on to study most effectively. Basically, if you're able to group students using the super-rich datasets you've got, and then compare PT improvement for students within those groups based on different drill histories it could help identify what drilling techniques work best for each student's "type" -- it seems like peoples' difficulties in some ways fall into categories, and this could be a cool way to leverage the data of other students in your archetype.