u/boredompills

Hi Everybody-

I bought The Loophole and am also reviewing 7Sage's explanation for this question. I understand why the answer is the answer for 7Sage's question posing (it is a different exercise in The Loophole re answers).

But that's the problem. I don't even understand why 'the conclusion' is 'the conclusion'.

Here's the question:

Scientist: Earth's average annual temperature has increased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius over the last century. This warming is primarily the result of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere, blocking the outward flow of heat from the planet.

I am not even seeing why the conclusion is the conclusion.

I did the "Why should I believe that?" test, and I do not see how the fact that earth's avg annual temp increasing supports the explanation for the heat up. 

It seems like circular reasoning, almost. 

And if anything that the 'conclusion' provides support (or at least an explanation) of why earth's avg annual temperature increased. 

This seems more like a premise set to me, not an argument.

And here's the thing- I got the question wrong on 7Sage because, god forbid my brain is able to read through an entire sentence and process it, but I fully understand why the correct answer is viable.

I also see why 'The Loophole' presents a valid counter argument.

Why is the conclusion the conclusion though? If anything, to me, it just seems like another premise.

Thanks

Hi All,

I, a consumer, would like to order products from a German company. They have an online store and I have family in Germany.

I am in Canada. If it helps, I own a Canadian business that moves goods as well.

How would you suggest I most cheaply and effectively, with as little hassle to my family as possible, get the goods to me from Germany to Canada?

Thanks!

Hi All-

Well, I’m on my ever evolving iron journey… though would love it to kind of slow down!

I take an iron supplement, but want to ensure I’m getting adequate iron in my meals as well- and absorbable.

Here’s the tricky part- apparently, so many foods inhibit iron absorption!

Apples?! Spices?! Zinc rich foods? Calcium rich foods??

Has anyone got a super simple meal plan they’d recommend that is carefully laid out to limit these iron blocking foods for max absorption?

Thank you in advance! Also cheers to superior plant based iron- it’s so interesting to learn how the body genuinely does better on it.

Hi All-

Personal brand vs business brand.

How does one balance personal brand with business brand?

I follow The Financial Diet and am bewildered and impressed by the structure and balance between the brand and CEO Chelsea Fagan. Basically, when to blur personal with business and share it with the world.

I appreciate your insight. Her brand has been inspiring in this sense because I can see how this approach has helped to build trust and lasting impressions with their followers. She is also very outspoken with respect to somewhat ‘controversial’ topics and melds it well with the business.

I’m not sure how or if I should incorporate my own views more into my business. I lead an ethically focused food brand- we do ok. But I think this could be more of a make or break. And selfishly, I find this sort of long form content, like TFD creates, to be easier to create.

Thank you and apologies for the War and Peace length query!

Hi-

So I am reading through The Loophole and I really enjoy it.

But I am still confused about identifying which part of the sentence the conditional indicator applies to. I am a native English speaker but am struggling.

When there are commas and the sentence is clearly divided into separate thoughts and accompanying concepts, it is easy for me.

But otherwise, I find it confusing.

We have the What Test- which I have termed the What('s)? Test. And then we can adjust the phrase into the Personalized If/Then. I find the What? Test sometimes does not work, because if one adds What on either side of the indicator, it still makes grammatical sense. Often, I find it does work.

Here are three examples I have struggled with understanding. I will change them slightly so as not to plagiarize.

1. I am sad for an hour after whenever I see him.

First, we try the What('s)? Test:

A) I am sad for an hour after what?
B) What whenever I see him?

A) makes grammatical sense, so I will assign the whenever to 'I see him'. Whenever is a sufficient indicator, so we get:

Whenever I see him, I am sad for an hour after.

We don't need to progress beyond the What('s)? Test.

2. B is always a great person.

First, we try the What('s)? Test:

A) B is always what?
B) What is always a great person?

The only error here I can think of is you would say "Who" instead of "What" when asking about a person. But I do not know if that logic holds here. I am not confident in one being correct, so I move on to the second option I have discovered: exists.

I go like this:

If B exists, then he is a great person.

So that makes me diagram the original like: B --> GP

Apparently this is correct.

is is the verb that I assign the Subject of the sentence (B) to. And is gets 'replaced' with exists.

I do not know if this holds water at all- do you think it does? If so, why? Why not?

3. Love requires me to transform entirely.

First, we try the What('s)? Test:

A) What requires me to transform entirely? Looks good!
B) Love requires what? Shoot. Also good.

Honestly, A) looks better, but I do not trust it.

Love is the noun with the action, with the indicator. Just like above with B and is.

So I go:

If love exists, then it requires me to transform entirely.

And apparently that is correct.

This example messed me up. Does it mean 'Love is required for me to transform' or ' Love demands that I transform'

What do you think about my 'system'?

To recap:

1. I go with the What('s)? Test (aka the What Test)
2. If that does not clear things up, then I go for the verb associated with the indicator (if there is a separate verb) and use 'exist(s)' and the noun performing that verb is what exist(s). And then we can create our 'If/Then' statement.

Is this really stupid or can I bank on a free ride to the school of my choice?

Hi Everybody-

I’m still confused.

This example-

If we pursue music and find success, we will be able to eat.

I understand that this can be written as an if/then.

It seems to me though, that:

a) we will be able to eat is not a necessary component of ‘making it’ in music. It’s logical that it is one but who knows- what if someone finds success and then two minutes later, they drop dead and are therefore never able to eat.

B) the conditions seem mixed up to me, logically- it seems that the outcome of being able to eat is reliant upon the success. So to me it feels like ‘if we are able to eat, then we have found success in our musical careers’

I can see both working.

I see that there are two conditions that must be met for the conditional relationship to be activated.

I just don’t see why someone eating must happen as a result of their success in music. It seems reversed to me and now I am confused by the whole thing

Some of the examples make sense logically to me, and some do not. So I think I am missing a foundational understanding.

I’m reading through and taking many notes and trying to understand.

Hi All-

We have a machine at work that could use the steady hand of a jeweller for some maintenance (wires are a bit bent).

Do you know of any ‘will travel’ jewellers we could commission?

Thanks!

Would you go for it? It’s at an auto auction. And if so, how much is fair to pay?

Thank you!

HI All-

ok, I have narrowed it down to a couple of options and am leaning toward a Honda Fit.

I found one at a dealership which may be the right option (a 2009, but has 182,000KM). Dealer had it listed for $7990 but knocked it down nearly one grand to $6,995.

I would like to be able to pay up front. I haven't really negotiated the purchase of a car in a while- I know that being able to pay up front offers me some leverage, but what would you do in this case? And is there a general rule other than waiting til the end of the month when they are desperate to make sales quotas? (Not to be predatory.)

Thank you in advance!

Hi All-

I’m going between a Honda Fit and a Yaris as my new vehicle choice.

This is the description of a Yaris I just found- what do you think?

168000km mostly highway

Reliable commuter car! Extremely efficient, about 600km per tank. Best car I ever owned, selling because I had to get a truck for work.
Properly maintained, tires are 3years old, brakes just got done. Minor scratches like the picture, can probably be buffed out. Clean title, no accidents, zero rust. Second owner, have carfax.

Automatic transmission
Base model
2door

Open to offers!

Hi All-

As the title says.

I have found some options but many of them are of rebuilt status. I just don’t know what to look out for in terms of when it is passable to buy a rebuild and when not.

For example. I’m looking at a 2010 Yaris- but the bumper had to be replaced due to a rear ending. Would something like that be a deal breaker?

Thank you for your help, in advance. I’m super lost.

Hi All-

My smart car broke down and I am on the market for a new small car. (New to me- would definitely have to be used).

I thought I would ask here as you all seem very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about your Fits!

A bit about my needs:

1. Do not drive much- need in case of emergency and the odd city trip (mostly- occasionally take a highway).
2. Haven't got a big budget by any means- I am hoping to be at $6K Canadian all in but.... not sure how realistic that is.
3. Does not need bells and whistles- just the basics, certainly including AC, and needs to run very well.

Questions:

1. Which generation do you think would fit the bill best?
2. How many KM should be 'too many' to consider purchasing?
3. Any generations I should avoid?
4. What questions should I ask/check to inspect before purchasing?

Thank you!

Hi-

Alright so, now I know how it felt to be those kids who didn't 'get' math or calc. Here I am, not understanding English.

Over the past few days, I've been working my way through 7Sage's Conditional Logic video (Master Conditional Logic in 30 Minutes). I have found some very valuable explanations in it for sure but I have been working on one example for two days.

I am next level confused by their 'unless' example- and I feel like an idiot because it is just breezed through.

Here is the question:

There won't be ice on the sidewalk tomorrow, unless there is a blizzard tonight.

Then, we have to pick either A or B, whichever expresses the same relationship as the blizzard statement:

A) There will be ice on the sidewalk tomorrow, only if there is a blizzard tonight.

B) There will be ice on the sidewalk tomorrow if there is a blizzard tonight.

Ok, immediately I look at my notes and cue cards and see that unless could mean 'if not' which can be interpreted as whatever comes after 'if not' is the necessary condition. So A looks pretty good- it uses 'only if' which is a necessary condition term.

But then he goes into this whole bit about 'not blizzard tonight then not ice tomorrow' and I am lost. Like, what is going on? So we are saying B did not happen (it is false)- and that is how I can get the sufficient and the necessary to switch spots. So that is the only way it could have that cross out illustrated.

So if B is not true, as in, 'there was not a blizzard, no blizzard happened' so there 'won't won't be ice on the sidewalk tomorrow' which to me is like negative times negative equals positive, so there will be ice on the sidewalk which makes absolutely no sense, LSAC logic or not. Unless something else happened to create ice on the sidewalk.

I so far have over 16 pages of handwritten notes on this video- and I am at a loss.

I also have a note in another notebook which says *unless there's a blizzard tonight does not equal unless there is not a blizzard tonight* and maybe that is trying to tell me something? I think it is because that means I can switch 'blizzard tonight' and 'ice sidewalk' and can make 'blizzard tonight' crossed through (the contrapositive) but the won't won't situation is destroying my brain. I see it in a spreadsheet. The cell wants to be positive and I agree.

Just another note. I was reflecting upon my 4 Types of Conditional Indicators cue card and took some extra notes under the 'if not' column and the 'necessary condition' column.

Interesting observation imo- two of the words under the 'if not' column (unless, without), seem to present a negative version of the 'exclusive' or 'positive' 'necessary condition' column- only if, only, must. (typed that out by memory- yessssss).

So maybe things change depending upon which words are used in which column.

Hi All-

I have been going over this question for a few days- found it on 7Sage and I cannot find a satisfying solution.

Ethicist: The general principle—if one ought to do something then one can do it—does not always hold true. This may be seen by considering an example. Suppose someone promises to meet a friend at a certain time, but—because of an unforeseen traffic jam—it is impossible to do so. 

1. Which one of the following is an assumption required by the ethicist's argument?

- off the bat, my thought is that the ethicist is considering a promise as an 'ought to do' outright

- and that the 'can do it' is actually a cannot because of a situation outside of the person's control, making them incapable of fulfilling their ought to do.

A) If a person failed to do something she or he ought to have done, then that person failed to do something that she or he promised to do.
- this does not address the ability or inability to fulfill an 'ought to do'
- if it had said that "because there was an external factor preventing them from doing so", I would be more inclined to think this was a decent answer

B) Only an event like an unforeseen traffic jam could excuse a person from the obligation to keep a promise.
- this seems like a summary of what the ethicist is saying, but it only addresses the 'promise' factor- are there not other things we ought to do that we don't outright promise? (It does not say promise in the general principle).

C) If there is something that a person ought not do, then it is something that that person is capable of not doing.
- I think this kind of makes sense? Like if a person ought not to pay for others to kill animals, then they are capable of not paying for others to kill animals. (And yet...)
= but honestly just confused by this option C)

D) The obligation created by a promise is not relieved by the fact that the promise cannot be kept.
- This is saying the opposite of what the Ethicist is arguing.

E) If an event like an unforeseen traffic jam interferes with someone's keeping a promise, then that person should not have made the promise to begin with.
- This does not address the argument at all. It has nothing to do with the past.

Thank you for your help in advance!

Hi All-

Well, my trusty little car has died and I am still not making much money.

So I went on a car search and found a 2010 Toyota Yaris and bargained for $6k. It has 190000 km on it and it is in the lower mainland of BC (so- think damp here).

My husband thinks I should get a more expensive car as my family has offered to help, but for a variety of reasons, I’d prefer to buy it on my own.

I don’t drive much but want something reliable and suitable for little parking spots.

Something with low maintenance fees and is good on fuel. Really nothing fancy- my last car didn’t have AC which… I have decided is a must for me to have a my next car….

It isn’t a rebuild and the seller is offering the carfax reports- I’m meant to go see it on Thursday, and would give more info but the listing is down.

Is this enough information to let me know if this is a good deal or not?

Thank you in advance! I’m also looking at auto auctions.

Hi All-

Life has been busy- maybe more so than usual.

I wanted to leave a little note though to ask about your experience with activism- does it help you feel better?

It does for me.

I’m looking forward to doing more and more strategic activism.

We have created change in our own lives and can help others do so as well.

Please drop your favourite resources!

Thank you 💚

Hi All-

We started our 5 yo cat on Pregabalin on Wednesday morning.
We took her on a family outing in her backpack this afternoon and when we got back, she was unsteady on her feet.
We took her to emergency- all her vitals were good and the vet did a neurology observation- all seemed fine to her.

My husband just googled side effects of Pregabalin and all of the issues mentioned came up- the vet mentioned nothing. She also is very quiet- barely meowing.

Yesterday morning, she heaved a bit but nothing came up.

But, she is still really into food and was yesterday as well.

Could all of these issues be a delayed reaction?

Age: 5 yo
Spayed
Breed: ragdoll (mix?)
Other medical issues: asthma, arthritis, chronic rhinitis
Other medications: Flovent 2x/day, 5mg Reactin, Flexadin (has chicken… which she typically bites her forearms while I feed the Flexadin to her, but since the Pregabalin, she has not been), Pregabalin (25 mg capsule, half contents in AM, half in dinner meal),Two Crazy Cat ladies supplements (Breathe, Oxycat, CATalyst), and a bespoke immunotherapy which seems to do absolutely nothing.

Hi Everybody-

I am absolutely floored that I got 5/5 on the 7Sage PT 146- I started it this morning before work but the house got busy so had to abandon it.

Is this a really easy PT? I am not sure why I was able to do it this well. All of the questions seemed to 'make sense' to me- and to be honest, I had a hard time up until very recently even reading the questions and considering them...

180 here I come, lol.

>I am really enjoying Juris Education's website. This is Question #9 of their Necessary Assumption Section.

“Farmer: Crops genetically engineered to produce toxins that enable them to resist insect pests do not need to be sprayed with insecticides. Since excessive spraying of insecticides has harmed wildlife populations near croplands, using such genetically engineered crops more widely is likely to help wildlife populations to recover.”

Which one of the following is an assumption the farmer’s argument requires?

(A) Use of the crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests in place of crops that have been sprayed with insecticides will cause less harm to wildlife populations.

(B) Wildlife populations that have been harmed by the excessive spraying of insecticides on croplands are likely to recover if the amount of insecticides sprayed on those croplands is reduced even slightly.

(C) Crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests are never sprayed with insecticides that harm wildlife populations.

(D) Use of crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests is no more costly to farmers than the use of insecticides on crops that are not genetically engineered.

(E) If a wider use of certain crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests is likely to help at least some wildlife populations to recover, it is likely to have that effect only because its use will prevent excessive and ineffective spraying of insecticides on croplands.

I am not sure why the last answer is wrong. I understand why the first one is right though. Please help- thank you!