The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[flash21]

Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.

Pt 42, s2, Q 18

I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.

Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).

hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?

I think so.

Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.




Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.

[BillPackets]

Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.

Pt 42, s2, Q 18

I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.

Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).

hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?

I think so.

Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.




Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.

nah theres a pretty clear premise conclusion.

conclusion: probable that flowers developed in response to type of visions that bees have, rather than vice versa

not much of a premise in this one, the first part is mostly background info that doesnt affect anything.

BUT, so the conclusion is affirming the existence of one type of causal relationship, and denying another. this is a strengthen q.

how do we strengthen this argument?

1) show that when you remove the cause, you remove the effect
2) eliminate alternate explanation

this argument eliminates alternate explanations. A is basically eliminating the possibility that any other type of insect could have had the impact that bees have had flowers. do you see that gap from the core? who's to say that it was because of bees? why not another insect?

basically B-E are way out scope. D is way out of scope because who cares about nonflowering plants? how would that strengthen the argument in any way?

ETA: also flash idk if u have but its good to memorize how to weaken/strengthen causal arguments.

weaken a causes b

take away cause, still get same effect (/a, still get b)
get different effect with same cause (a causes c)
or an alternate explanation (x actually causes b)

[Hand]

Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.

Pt 42, s2, Q 18

I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.

Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).

hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?

I think so.

Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.

Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.

There's no paradox, nor is there an argument, really. There is a blunt assertion, viz., 'it is more likely that X developed as a response to Y than the other way around'. The answer to the question should be something that supports this assertion, in the sense of making it more plausible. Answer (A) does the job (for if bees' vision had developed in response to flowers, we would expect them to be unique in this respect, instead of sharing this feature with creatures that have interest in flowers); (B), (C), and (E) clearly have no bearing on the issue. Does the fact that many non-flowering plants rely on bees make it more plausible that plants developed in response to bees' vision, rather than the other way around? No - this fact is, we might say, neutral in the matter, making it neither more like that bees' vision developed in response to flowers nor that flowers developed in response to bees' vision.

[Hand]

Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.

Pt 42, s2, Q 18

I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.

Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).

hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?

I think so.

Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.




Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.

nah theres a pretty clear premise conclusion.

conclusion: probable that flowers developed in response to type of visions that bees have, rather than vice versa

not much of a premise in this one, the first part is mostly background info that doesnt affect anything.

BUT, so the conclusion is affirming the existence of one type of causal relationship, and denying another. this is a strengthen q.

how do we strengthen this argument?

1) show that when you remove the cause, you remove the effect
2) eliminate alternate explanation

this argument eliminates alternate explanations. A is basically eliminating the possibility that any other type of insect could have had the impact that bees have had flowers. do you see that gap from the core? who's to say that it was because of bees? why not another insect?

basically B-E are way out scope. D is way out of scope because who cares about nonflowering plants? how would that strengthen the argument in any way?

ETA: also flash idk if u have but its good to memorize how to weaken/strengthen causal arguments.

weaken a causes b

take away cause, still get same effect (/a, still get b)
get different effect with same cause (a causes c)
or an alternate explanation (x actually causes b)

look at everyone bein all business all of a sudden

[flash21]

Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.

Pt 42, s2, Q 18

I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.

Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).

hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?

I think so.

Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.




Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.

nah theres a pretty clear premise conclusion.

conclusion: probable that flowers developed in response to type of visions that bees have, rather than vice versa

not much of a premise in this one, the first part is mostly background info that doesnt affect anything.

BUT, so the conclusion is affirming the existence of one type of causal relationship, and denying another. this is a strengthen q.

how do we strengthen this argument?

1) show that when you remove the cause, you remove the effect
2) eliminate alternate explanation

this argument eliminates alternate explanations. A is basically eliminating the possibility that any other type of insect could have had the impact that bees have had flowers. do you see that gap from the core? who's to say that it was because of bees? why not another insect?

basically B-E are way out scope. D is way out of scope because who cares about nonflowering plants? how would that strengthen the argument in any way?

(D) If the PLANTS rely on the BEEs, then it makes sense that the plants would have developed for the bees. I dont really think that this is so far out of scope it doesnt make any sense. See what I mean?

[GreenTee]

Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.

Pt 42, s2, Q 18

I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.

Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).

hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?

I think so.

Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.




Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.

(A) Correct because it makes it less likely that bees' vision developed specifically for the task of identifying flowers by their colors, which weakens the "rather than" statement in the stim, thereby supporting the argument.

(B) Wrong because these other insects could have eyes which are dissimilar to bees' eyes.

(C) Wrong because the greater number of different flower species could suggest that they have varying effects on bees' eyes, which would make this a weakener.

(D) Wrong because of the group to which it refers: "nonflowering plants." What is true of nonflowering plants and their reliance on bees says exactly nothing about flowering plants and their relation to bees.

(E) Wrong because it lends nothing to either side of this this chicken-or-egg conundrum. It just shows that bees may benefit from being able to identify flowers, which has no bearing on the argument.

Edit - scooped, but I hope this helps

[BillPackets]

(D) If the PLANTS rely on the BEEs, then it makes sense that the plants would have developed for the bees. I dont really think that this is so far out of scope it doesnt make any sense. See what I mean?

what does rely mean in that sense? we dont really know. you're providing your own definition of what rely means within the argument i.e. you're assuming that they're using rely in the exact same sense as they are in the argument. thats not supported. i think thats the main reason why its out of scope, but also nonflowering throws it out of scope.

to me this question is a good illustration of the relationship between strengthen/NA assumptions. if you approach this as a NA q, i think it makes alot more sense

[GreenTee]

(D) If the PLANTS rely on the BEEs, then it makes sense that the plants would have developed for the bees. I dont really think that this is so far out of scope it doesnt make any sense. See what I mean?

Flash, see my explanation above. You missed the fact that (D) is talking about nonflowering plants.

[flash21]

hmm okay. Thanks Bill and GreenTee, you guys make some good points.

I think I understand it now, I was making unwarranted assumptions here. Not really sure why this particular Q was such a brain buster for me.

EDIT:: Ah Okay. I see now - I guess I thought flowering plants and non-flowering would be close enough to compare. I guess even then, Bills explanation handles the other aspect of it actually being neutral.

Did you guys find this Q to be difficult at all? I'm trying to pin point what makes these type of Q's so hard for me. Strengthen questions I normally get right , on 7sage I have a 90 % + rating on these, but this is one of the few I missed.

[GreenTee]

Did you guys find this Q to be difficult at all? I'm trying to pin point what makes these type of Q's so hard for me. Strengthen questions I normally get right , on 7sage I have a 90 % + rating on these, but this is one of the few I missed.

It's a tricky question, for sure. I wouldn't feel badly for struggling with it.

[BillPackets]

hmm okay. Thanks Bill and GreenTee, you guys make some good points.

I think I understand it now, I was making unwarranted assumptions here. Not really sure why this particular Q was such a brain buster for me.

EDIT:: Ah Okay. I see now - I guess I thought flowering plants and non-flowering would be close enough to compare. I guess even then, Bills explanation handles the other aspect of it actually being neutral.

Did you guys find this Q to be difficult at all? I'm trying to pin point what makes these type of Q's so hard for me. Strengthen questions I normally get right , on 7sage I have a 90 % + rating on these, but this is one of the few I missed.

i dont feel bad about struggling w any q that i may struggle w. its kind of a weird strengthen in that its mostly just a conclusion that asserts a causal relation but i think POE really helps w this one

[BillPackets]

Take amphetamine.

not all of us have access

[ilikebaseball]

[BillPackets]

ill PM 4 help

[hillz]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

[flash21]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

Im just kidding but I do get ignored a lot but usually saying pls respond helps so thats ok

[hillz]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

Im just kidding but I do get ignored a lot but usually saying pls respond helps so thats ok

I'd help you more often but I'm usually at work.

[boris09]

Okaaaaay that did not go as expected. I don't know what it was, but i was just off my game the whole test. Even more embarassing how badly i did given the -9 curve on the test. I got so frustrated at one point that i chose to blind review one of the LR sections that i got a ridiculous -9 on right after i was done. Conclusion: all 9 questions i got wrong by narrowing it down to a right and a wrong answer and choosing the wrong. And of course i get -0 on the B.R. lol sigh, maybe taking another test today isn't the best idea

[GreenTee]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

Im just kidding but I do get ignored a lot but usually saying pls respond helps so thats ok

I'd help you more often but I'm usually at work.

I'd help you more often but sometimes I'm not at work.

[hillz]

Okaaaaay that did not go as expected. I don't know what it was, but i was just off my game the whole test. Even more embarassing how badly i did given the -9 curve on the test. I got so frustrated at one point that i chose to blind review one of the LR sections that i got a ridiculous -9 on right after i was done. Conclusion: all 9 questions i got wrong by narrowing it down to a right and a wrong answer and choosing the wrong. And of course i get -0 on the B.R. lol sigh, maybe taking another test today isn't the best idea

That's frustrating. I hate when it comes down to two tricky answers.

[BillPackets]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

Im just kidding but I do get ignored a lot but usually saying pls respond helps so thats ok

i help flash all the time he posted at like 6 AM on sat (my time which is MST) and i was jolly on it

[flash21]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

Im just kidding but I do get ignored a lot but usually saying pls respond helps so thats ok

i help flash all the time he posted at like 6 AM on sat (my time which is MST) and i was jolly on it

props bill.

[hetookmetoamovie]

Flash, you are not the thread loser!

Im just kidding but I do get ignored a lot but usually saying pls respond helps so thats ok

i help flash all the time he posted at like 6 AM on sat (my time which is MST) and i was jolly on it

Bill is the thread Samaritan He helps all in need.

[GreenTee]

.

[BillPackets]

Bill, I have a mole on my left forearm roughly the shape of the West Bank. What should I do?

its q'able depends on if 1) u were born w it 2) u spend a lot of time outside 3) what your leisure activities include obvs i would start w a simply webMD search to give yourself a self diagnosis and it it looks like its precancer i might go ahead and go to the derm but then u might have to get it removed which is a very minor procedure but its still surgery