42 LR One Question 19
- « 42 LR One Question 18
- 791 of 3815
- 42 LR One Question 20 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
When a question has an ascription - we know the conclusion is going to be "they are wrong".
In this case the ascription is "freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress".
Question 1. When we diagram the 'they are wrong' part for the conclusion of sufficient assumption questions - do we always add the NOT before the noun? As in "NOT a precondition", or "NOT a factor" (Q 23 this section).
Question 2. When there is a big long section that is evidence for the ascription - can we ignore that for the purposes of answering the question? In this question it says "It has been argued... blah blah blah... BECAUSE" --> then a bunch of info supporting the ascription.
Question 3. After the HOWEVER (indicating we are about to disagree), it gives evidence about why the authour disagrees with the ascription. Should I always focus here for the premises used for diagraming purposes? I.E Ignore the premises for the ascription, and use the premises against the ascription only?
I hope that makes sense!
1. It doesn't have to be before the noun. If some people say sushi is delicious, I'd say they're wrong; sushi is NOT delicious. The point is just that we're saying they are wrong.
2. I ignore it. I do not remember ever needing it. This makes sense, because you're not being asked about their (some people's) argument. You're worried about the person who's saying they're wrong.
3. I think this is another way of asking your preceding question. Yes, because (as above), you're worried about the argument being made by the person who's saying some people are wrong.
is This is a sufficient assumption question?
I'm having difficutly accurately choosing what to diagram. Would it be possible to see how you broke down the conditionals to what was relevant to answer the question?
I did understand the explanation and the diagramming in the video.
When trying to diagram mining ideas--progress
when the author then says" and for this we need discipline. so Progress--discipline
Looks like I'm butchering the conditionals/ not choosing what conditionals to focus on.
I looked at it as a comparison between the "others" and the professor's conditionals for intellectual progress, I need significant work on structural reading apparently.
Dave, I know you advocate for structural reading. Especially when I see sufficient assumption questions, naturally my inclination is to diagram the conditionals. Very generally how do you know when to chunk the ideas vs the conditionals?
In my use of the term, structural reading always means thinking about the structural function of the words. I think this is what you mean when you say "chunk the ideas."
I only sometimes diagram conditional relationships.
I'd say the best way to think of conditional symbolization is as a tool - really, in pretty much precisely the way you'd think about a hammer.
When you're driving a nail, there's just nothing better for the job than a hammer. I mean, you could do it another way (whacking at it with your tape measure, or with the sharp end of your screwdriver, if you're really precise and awesome with a screwdriver), but for putting a nail in, the hammer is your best bet.
At the same time, however, you don't go running downstairs to your toolbox to fetch your hammer every time you need to push in a thumbtack.
Conditional symbols are like that hammer - you should use them when you find they help you see the relationships, and you should feel fine with not using them if you can decipher the relationship in the passage easily without them.
I hope that helps!