The Official December 2014 Study Group Forum

[some1uknown]

finally did PT 73, not the biggest confidence booster, getting a 165 but damn, apparently i have a real issue with just reading what the answer says, could've been a 171

[Big Red]

.

[Rigo]

[Rigo]

[Shakawkaw]

Thanks for the support, Rigo!

Also, can someone explain #20 in LR1 of PT 72? tyia!

[santoki]

i have a ton of good luck right now thanks to all these schools emailing me, dont know bout you guys

[Big Red]

.

[Rigo]

[KanGaHru]

i have a ton of good luck right now thanks to all these schools emailing me, dont know bout you guys

Of course you do. You have two rabbit feet!

edit: make that four!

[santoki]

i have a ton of good luck right now thanks to all these schools emailing me, dont know bout you guys

Of course you do. You have two rabbit feet!

ad hominem flaw

[KanGaHru]

i have a ton of good luck right now thanks to all these schools emailing me, dont know bout you guys

Of course you do. You have two rabbit feet!

ad hominem flaw

Don't get fresh with me bunny

[sashafierce]

Plan for tomorrow: full body massage, flaw drilling, MSS notes review, general LR notes review sleep.

Are you feeling better?

I am feeling a lot better, thank you for asking

[Rigo]

[secadc11]

Guys, I may just be delirious, but I'm so pumped for Saturday right now. Can't wait to 180 (or at least 170+) this thing.

[koala-fy]

Thanks for the support, Rigo!

Also, can someone explain #20 in LR1 of PT 72? tyia!

It's failing to consider (B) because it's possible that they WERE cultivated, but maybe it takes a long time for the apples to increase in size. Just because the apples were smaller than TODAY'S grocery store apples doesn't mean that they weren't cultivated. Maybe it takes centuries for wild apples to look like today's cultivated ones. Hence, it fails to consider that "plants that have only been cultivated for a short time" (wild apples) might look more like wild ones rather than "plants that have been cultivated for a long time" (our grocery store apples).

Sorry if that was confusing. My head is so fuzzy from drilling.

[santoki]

^ #confirmed

[Rigo]

[Shakawkaw]

Thanks for the support, Rigo!

Also, can someone explain #20 in LR1 of PT 72? tyia!

It's failing to consider (B) because it's possible that they WERE cultivated, but maybe it takes a long time for the apples to increase in size. Just because the apples were smaller than TODAY'S grocery store apples doesn't mean that they weren't cultivated. Maybe it takes centuries for wild apples to look like today's cultivated ones. Hence, it fails to consider that "plants that have only been cultivated for a short time" (wild apples) might look more like wild ones rather than "plants that have been cultivated for a long time" (our grocery store apples).

Sorry if that was confusing. My head is so fuzzy from drilling.

Omg. Derrrr. Thanks Koala - that makes sense. I picked that the argument takes for granted that there are other sizes besides small and large. Is there any reason why we can't argue that the apples cultivated 5,000 years ago were medium, and that the argument just didn't take this into account? Or am I really dumb and forgetting that for flaw questions, we can't criticize the argument for leaving this out?

[koala-fy]

Omg. Derrrr. Thanks Koala - that makes sense. I picked that the argument takes for granted that there are other sizes besides small and large. Is there any reason why we can't argue that the apples cultivated 5,000 years ago were medium, and that the argument just didn't take this into account? Or am I really dumb and forgetting that for flaw questions, we can't criticize the argument for leaving this out?

That's the exact answer I chose when I first took it a couple months ago. In JY's explanation he said because that's not really what the argument is doing. It's not saying that there's only two sizes, it's just incorrectly saying that because it's not the same size as our apples, there's no way it was cultivated. The scientist never establishes that there are only two sizes; he/she never says there aren't other sizes. Definitely a tricky answer though.

[monadologist]

After taking a day off due to burnout, got back into it:

PT71

LR1 (-1)
LG (-3)
LR2 (-5)
RC (-2)

90 raw (173)

God I hope this Saturday's test is a duplicate of PT71, it was an enjoyable PT compared to 72/73

[santoki]

If anyone is needing to relax tonight and/or tomorrow, I highly recommend the Serial Podcast if you haven't listened to it yet.

people rave about that all over my twitter and facebook feeds...quick summary of what it is?

[Rigo]

[santoki]

It's kind of a mystery/documentary (similar to Dateline on network tv)
It involves a real life case that has been adjudicated but the narrator delves back into it and reinvestigates it.
So far there have been 10 episodes.

thanks, il have to check it out post-apocalypse

[Shakawkaw]

Omg. Derrrr. Thanks Koala - that makes sense. I picked that the argument takes for granted that there are other sizes besides small and large. Is there any reason why we can't argue that the apples cultivated 5,000 years ago were medium, and that the argument just didn't take this into account? Or am I really dumb and forgetting that for flaw questions, we can't criticize the argument for leaving this out?

That's the exact answer I chose when I first took it a couple months ago. In JY's explanation he said because that's not really what the argument is doing. It's not saying that there's only two sizes, it's just incorrectly saying that because it's not the same size as our apples, there's no way it was cultivated. The scientist never establishes that there are only two sizes; he/she never says there aren't other sizes. Definitely a tricky answer though.

Ah - thank you koala!

[unodostres]

30% nervous
50% excited
20% lethargic

dunno but i dunno