This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - mentor
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9
« on: November 09, 2007, 03:59:54 PM »
Considering this was a parallel flaw question and other AC's besides TCR show the same converse fallacy (A and B), you need the second flaw of Alicia's knowledge vs. bank rules to answer it correctly. In fact, the prompt quite clearly asks for both.
Cliffs Notes: Listen to Jeffort.
« on: November 08, 2007, 04:14:51 AM »
'A consistent political policy does not hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed'
'A consistent political policy does hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed?
Hey Jeffort, A Penny Saved Is A
A Penny Earned.
« on: November 08, 2007, 04:08:11 AM »
Go back and look at the basics of both argument structure and conditional logic/diagramming. Seriously. Lesson 1. Spend a couple hours redoing it. I see a lot of times people get caught up in the various question types and intricacies of the test while they're still making mistakes in the underlying fundamentals. Shore up the basics, and the rest will fall into place much easier.
« on: November 06, 2007, 10:00:52 PM »
Sort of. 'Most' quantified statements, indicating a majority, don't really have a valid contrapositive, but this is as close as it comes.
For instance: if most A are B, A m--> B
we can't say most not B are not A !B m--> !A
but it seems logically valid to say that !B is outside the majority of A. That doesn't necessarily mean it's in the minority of A - it could be outside A entirely - just not in the majority.
It's far easier just to consider 'most' and 'some' statements contrapositiveless.
« on: November 05, 2007, 04:43:26 PM »
Alabama by email 11/5
This is only interesting because I wrote the admissions office a week ago asking for one and never heard back. I submitted my application last weekend and paid the fee. They now tell me that they will refund the app fee. There's some southern hospitality for you.
Yeah, but are they gonna hook you up with that sweet sweet iTunes gift card?
« on: November 05, 2007, 04:42:17 PM »
60 points is the maximum possible jump. HTH.
I've seen some 30 point jumpers in less than 2 months.
« on: November 05, 2007, 03:12:14 PM »
Not really, although it seems to at first glance. However, rather than giving you a premise such as 'IF fully autonomous, THEN max realistic,' indicating that autonomous function is sufficient to guarantee maximally realistic planning, it says 'autonomous function always permits more realistic planning.' Dissecting this a bit means that no matter what level of realistic planning we're at, we can become more realistic by decentralizing for autonomous division function.
This means, in essence, that autonomous division functioning is necessary for maximally realistic planning.
Thus Max Real Plan --> Autonomous Function
and TCR is the contrapositive, not the inverse.
« on: November 05, 2007, 03:04:10 PM »
But I would guess that what they did, was make the conclusion more likely while not strengthening the ARGUMENT ITSELF much at all.
That's exactly what I meant.
« on: November 05, 2007, 03:01:13 PM »
P1: Most people CAN feel needed ONLY within this private interpersonal relationship sphere (friends and family).
Thus a minority of people CAN feel needed outside this sphere.
P2: If you don't feel needed, you can't be happy.
The combination of the premises means that a majority of people CAN ONLY feel happy within the sphere of private interpersonal relationships.
Right along with that, a minority of people CAN feel happy outside this sphere.
Notice all the capitalized CANS? Can indicates possibility. It is logically weak and cannot support a conclusion that has any stronger modality. The answer choice you chose says:
Most people in modern society ARE happy in their private lives...
The ARE is definite, and too strong. Our argument tells us that most people CAN be happy in private life, not that they actually will be. Answer choices that follow the argument but are too strong - that exceed the modality of the supporting argument - are a common incorrect choice on these types of questions.
« on: November 05, 2007, 04:03:01 AM »
Break the argument in the stimulus down to its component parts: conclusion first, then premise. There will be an assumption missing that the argument needs to be valid. Find that assumption and look for an answer choice that seeks to validate it.
A simple example:
Argument: A, therefore B.
Assumption needed: If A, then B.
TCR will point out some way that it can be reasonably believed that having A will give you B. It can be very weak logically - we don't need to prove the conclusion true - but it will lead you down a similar path.
One trick: for causal conclusions, the assumption at hand is essentially that this cause, and nothing else, produced this effect.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9