Webinar

ColinTurner610

A little while ago I was on here and people were talking about "nicole.hopkins" webinar on her reading comprehension strategy. Does anybody have the link to that or know where I can find it? Thanks everyone!

Law and Yoda

Just went to pull up the YouTube link and it says the videos unavailable...I think she took it down?? Not sure if anyone else is able to verify whether or not Nicole took it down, the webinar was called Reading Comprehension (All levels), "It's Hammer Time."

https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/5971

The only webinar she still has is on 7sage-https://7sage.com/webinar/my-18-point-increase-story/

ColinTurner610

Thank you Yoda! I see you on here a lot so I thought I'd reach out regarding another topics. This may be a dumb question but I'm really trying to lock down these valid/invalid forms so I can continue on. So in one of the comments at the end of the "valid" section I saw this, "In order to deduce a valid inference, the existential quantifiers need to precede the universal one." I know I'm missing something pretty important here but to me for instance form #6 is A → B, B → C, therefore, B some C. But it's valid. Also form #7, A →B, A some C, therefore, B some C. AND, form #8, A →B, A most C, therefore B some C. All of these have the universal quantifier first but are nonetheless valid. I know I'm missing something here that's throwing me off and I feel like it would be so helpful if I could pinpoint it. Probably a dumb question, but if you could help me out that would be great. Thanks Yoda.

Law and Yoda

Ok lets break this down piece by piece!

"In order to deduce a valid inference, the existential quantifiers need to precede the universal one." This is correct, we don't want the existential quantifier to come after a universal because that would be invalid. An example of an existential quantifier preceding a universal is Valid argument form 4: A some B->C therefore A some C. Some is the existential quantifier that precedes the universal B->C. Take the opposite of this which is Invalid argument form 3: A->B some C. In this case the existential is preceded by the universal. Just for the sake of clarity if anyone reads this; existential is a logical constant which is used when there exists some object in a class that has some property and universal is a logical constant which is used when a property holds for all elements of a class. Examples of existential (some, many, few, most), examples of universal (all, none, every).

Valid argument form 6:
A->B
A->C
Conclusion: B some C. The reason we can conclude a some relationship here is because of an intersection between the shared sufficient condition A.

Valid argument form 7:
A->B
A some C
Conclusion: B some C. There needs to be an intersection between B and C since every A is a B and at least one A is also a C.

Valid argument form 8:
A->B
A most C
Conclusion: B some C. Almost similar to 7 but with a most intersection. Think of it like this, 100% of As are B, 51-100% of As are C, so 1-100% (at least 1) of B are C.

Now lets go back to the first idea of existential preceding universal quantifiers. This won't be the case for each argument form unless they chain up together. The examples we worked with do not chain up together. Even though these examples include existential quantifiers we cannot say that the existential precedes the universal since there is a shared condition and the logical operators do not connect. Let me know if this answers your question, which by the way is a great question!

FindingSage

I saw the Nicole Hopkins webinar when I first started studying. She had a creative though complex notation system. Though it worked for her and I am sure others for RC when the test was on paper it really wouldn’t be applicable to the digital test.

ColinTurner610

Could you actually give me an example of the logical indicators connecting "Law and Yoda?" I have an idea but am having a brain fart and just want to make sure I definitely know what you mean.

Law and Yoda

All cute things practice the law
All cute things are Yoda's
Therefore some things that practice the law are Yoda's

A(cute things), B(Practice the Law), C(Yoda's)
A->B
A->C
B some C

The shared logical operator here is cute things.

hopefulling

I did a google search on the video name and there's a site with a transcript (no video). I've NEVER seen the video, so I don't know if it's correct, though. ... I don't want to link to something 'shady.' If that's the case! So, just 'google search' and you'll likely find it yourself.