So smoking increasing the likelihood of one having cancer by 5% is a CAUSAL claim. Yet, the claim that "people who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer" is CORRELATIVE. It seems to me the only difference between these is the quantification of these likelihoods. I can't imagine that it is a statement having numbers or not as being the deciding factor here. So what am I missing?
The 5% increase could be present in either a causal or correlative claim. Causal: Smoking increases chances of lung cancer by 5%. Correlative: People who smoke have a 5% increased chance of lung cancer. The reason for the difference is that in the causal claim, there is a definite effect of smoking on cancer likelihood. In the correlative claim, there is no indication that smoking has the effect of increasing cancer; maybe that 5% increase is due to other lifestyle habits, or a gene that both increases disposition towards smoking and also causes more mutations that could lead to cancer. The way to determine if a claim is causal is to ask yourself the following; given the way the claim is phrased, is the prevalence of the latter variable (y) due to the former (x)? Or do they just happen to coexist together?
Great lessons. Clear and straight to the point. But can you please add an example or two in the same video to help visualize the concept? Examples will help us to put the lesson into practice.
Is there any point in doing practice samples if you already write fairly well? It just seems pointless since there is no metric to evaluate it, such as with practice questions from the other test sections.
I think a main strategy to answering the Reading Comprehension questions is, Looking at the Question 1st. This way you have in the back of your mind what to keep an eye for, particularly in some of the long passages.
Thank you so much for these videos! The opportunity to “experience” the classroom environment as someone who can’t afford classes is so useful! The students have a lot of the same questions and misconceptions as I do and it’s so great to hear not only that the choice is wrong but why!
Pleaseeee tell me you are still teaching! This has been one of the best explanation I've come across! I've believed that my trying to understand was wrong, but indeed that's insanity, UNDERSTAND what you are reading (not for agreement sake) to be confident and pick the correct answer.
This is a poor setup. We know the contra positive is -L->-M and that for sure will happen in 1 one the groups because of the max going 2x rule (L can’t go 3x). This means that there will for sure be a group of NPQ. so the question is where can that group go? Well we know P can’t go in group 3. So make 2 options. One with group 1 with NPQ and the second option with group 2 NPQ. Further, there has to be two L and that fills out one of the charts.
One of the best. You tell me there are two ways to make a long sentence, one is to make subject long, another is to use structure. You then suggest to use visualization to help to understand. Also, U points out the key is to understand the idea from the sentence. Your explanation is straight to the points!
at 14:38, why did I have to go with F and L? there was no rule about that. Couldn't F, L, and G go under U and leave I under R, therefore putting H and M under S and K under T?
