u/BABYJ0HN

I've just finished chapter 6 on causation. I read a while back—in the basic translation section—that I should be doing that drill. I did the two in the book, but haven't done any more. I am confused because every chapter is currently teaching me something new, and I'm not sure whether it's enough just to go through the book right now and do the drills/quizzes at the end of each chapter, or whether I should be doing the basic translation drill alongside my textbook reading on real sections?

My timing for the BT drill is very slow. So it definitely needs work eventually, I just want to know if (1) I should be doing it alongside the textbook reading and (2) how I should be doing it. In the book it said to write down what you remember, but on reddit I've seen people say you should be saying it out loud and recording yourself instead.

I'm also wondering how quickly I should be working through this textbook, and how do I make sure the concepts from it stick. I'm consistently getting all of the drills at the end of each section correct, but I wonder whether it's really sticking in my brain without actual practice, as right now I'm not doing any kind of drilling outside of what's in the book!

Just looking for some guidance on this, and please give me a sample day and week if you could have practice with the textbook and the drills (if applicable). Thank you so much :) I overthink this way too much

PT 133, S2, Q2; "Some political thinkers hope to devise a form of government in which..."

Stimulus argues: laws define government = some individuals will learn to interpret laws = they gain more political power than others = therefore a government respecting every citizen's rights is impossible.

Official answer is >!D!<

But I think the answer is >!B!<

Here's my reasoning. The stimulus specifically says "some individuals will learn how to interpret these laws." plural. The whole causal chain depends on SOME individualSSS learning to interpret laws. D says "if anybody" (could be just ONE person) gains more power, rights get violated. That's broader than what the stimulus actually establishes, and it skips over the mechanism entirely.

B attacks the precondition. If citizens are ignorant of the laws, they by definition CANNOT learn to interpret them, so they can't gain disproportionate power, so rights aren't violated. The argument REQUIRES this not be possible, otherwise the conclusion ("such a government is impossible") falls apart.

Am I missing something or is this question just sloppy?

I'm extremely frustrated. I've encountered a couple of questions like this, where this approach is often what's taught: direct scrutiny of the internal logic of the stimulus. And then I get BS like this. What am I supposed to take away from this error? I wanna learn from this but I don;t know what to come out of this with. "sometimes the stimulus isn't really canon and sometimes it is?" like wtf