PT 41 S1 Q22 Forum

[New_Spice180]

Now this question isn't too bad I understand the fact that there is a problem with how to properly understand answer choice D. I'm working from a perspective of "during a timed section would I really be able understand it as explained?" It states "confuses the routine" nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule". Alright I understand that it is too much to jump from routinely to never, however, the explanation that never is the opposite of sometimes isn't intuitive. Does anyone have a better perspective on how to approach this question and understand the correct answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

[kindofcanuck]

Now this question isn't too bad I understand the fact that there is a problem with how to properly understand answer choice D. I'm working from a perspective of "during a timed section would I really be able understand it as explained?" It states "confuses the routine" nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule". Alright I understand that it is too much to jump from routinely to never, however, the explanation that never is the opposite of sometimes isn't intuitive. Does anyone have a better perspective on how to approach this question and understand the correct answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

The language in D might look a little complex, but if you work through the answer choices, it's the only viable one.

A is wrong. It doesn't say this is the only route into chaos, merely that they wish to avoid a particular route into chaos.
B is irrelevant.
C mistakes the first claim. The claim is always about the violation of any rule.
D Identifies the jump from line 1 (routine unpunishment) to conclusion (never allow any). This is Good.
E it doesn't have to, the stim's interested in the consequences of the principle, not any particular rule in question.

There isn't a problem with how to properly understand D. If you're feeling antsy, just work methodically through the choices, and after you've struck out four, check you understand the one that's left.

[New_Spice180]

Now this question isn't too bad I understand the fact that there is a problem with how to properly understand answer choice D. I'm working from a perspective of "during a timed section would I really be able understand it as explained?" It states "confuses the routine" nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule". Alright I understand that it is too much to jump from routinely to never, however, the explanation that never is the opposite of sometimes isn't intuitive. Does anyone have a better perspective on how to approach this question and understand the correct answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

The language in D might look a little complex, but if you work through the answer choices, it's the only viable one.

A is wrong. It doesn't say this is the only route into chaos, merely that they wish to avoid a particular route into chaos.
B is irrelevant.
C mistakes the first claim. The claim is always about the violation of any rule.
D Identifies the jump from line 1 (routine unpunishment) to conclusion (never allow any). This is Good.
E it doesn't have to, the stim's interested in the consequences of the principle, not any particular rule in question.

There isn't a problem with how to properly understand D. If you're feeling antsy, just work methodically through the choices, and after you've struck out four, check you understand the one that's left.

Sure but to jump from never to sometimes? I think that's a bit of foul play in my opinion, heavily misleading. I just don't want to find myself making such a jump on a question when my understanding of terms shifts need to be tighter, do you understand where I'm coming from? This is stating the opposite of never as an answer choice, and while the other four answer choices are moderately apparent as incorrect D is a bit convoluted and misleading in nature, which makes want to know to what degree should I expect "opposites" to work their ways into flaw questions?

[kindofcanuck]

Sure but to jump from never to sometimes? I think that's a bit of foul play in my opinion, heavily misleading. I just don't want to find myself making such a jump on a question when my understanding of terms shifts need to be tighter, do you understand where I'm coming from? This is stating the opposite of never as an answer choice, and while the other four answer choices are moderately apparent as incorrect D is a bit convoluted and misleading in nature, which makes want to know to what degree should I expect "opposites" to work their ways into flaw questions?

But that's the entire point of the answer. The stimulus makes a number of leaps. D identifies one of those - ABCE don't. Line 1 of the stim talks about when rules are not routinely enforced. The final line talks about them always being enforced. It's a profound shift from sometimes to never. This is a massive flaw in the stim, and one D is very clear about.