Inquiries regard Drill.12 & 41.

[RogerD345]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD regarding my prior post about : Pg.387. (Drill.69) Q.18 & Q.19.


Which you kindly informed me the Following:

"I'm cool with calling 18 and 19 premises, which would then render #20 an IC, which was supported by 18 and 19.
I would not call 19 an IC, since it's a fact, not an opinion.
But I think that #20 is an opinion, supported by 18 and 19."

I meant to ASK Q 18 and 19 as Premise and ask Q. 20 as IC in the first place; i got confused and an error occurred when i was typing due to i was typing a lot of information. Anyways, I was so happy that expert confirmed my perspective/analysis was correct.

Also, Thank you so much for your Help.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi.

Isn't Drill.12--Pg. 87. Q.18, Our mathematics education system is inequitable ... i know this can be disregarded but

I see this information ( Our mathematics education system is inequitable) can also function as IC that supports MC

Premise: Students are taught math in ways that alienate many students, causing them to graduate with poor math skills and a general distaste for mathematics

Therefore, Our Mathematics Education system is Inequitable. (IC)

Therefore, Mathematics education at all levels must be radically redesigned if we wish to improve the mathematics knowledge and skills of future generations. (MC- Recommendation & Mandate type)

Did I distinguish MC correctly? Also Am I wrong this information ( Our mathematics education system is inequitable) can also function as IC ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill. 41, Pg. 250 Q. 36,

since the author of Q.33-38 always agrees Madeline's point of view and pretty much Madelin's point of view is the author's point of view in this Question Stem, Since Q.36 is an opinion of Madeline that is supported by Q.33-35, It is difficult for me to judge Q.36 as Premise or IC. Cuz Q. 36 is an opinion of Madeleine based on 33-35. IF the author always agrees with the Madeline , shouldn't 36 be treated as IC as Same rationale that You and I identified Pg.387. (Drill.69) Q.20 as IC ?

[ohthatpatrick]

Isn't Drill.12--Pg. 87. Q.18, Our mathematics education system is inequitable ... i know this can be disregarded but
I see this information ( Our mathematics education system is inequitable) can also function as IC that supports MC


Yeah, I agree with you. Given that the first sentence is an opinion from our author, supported by the 2nd sentence, and relevant (even though maybe not necessary) to the conclusion drawn, I would not be inclined to say "just ignore this".



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill. 41, Pg. 250 Q. 36,

since the author of Q.33-38 always agrees Madeline's point of view and pretty much Madelin's point of view is the author's point of view in this Question Stem, Since Q.36 is an opinion of Madeline that is supported by Q.33-35, It is difficult for me to judge Q.36 as Premise or IC. Cuz Q. 36 is an opinion of Madeleine based on 33-35. IF the author always agrees with the Madeline , shouldn't 36 be treated as IC as Same rationale that You and I identified Pg.387. (Drill.69) Q.20 as IC ?

I agree with you that P doesn't feel right. I would either call this BG or MC.

When I author says "She's correct" or "He is wrong", I don't think of the MC as that statement of WHICH PERSON is right or wrong. I think about the MC as the author endorsing or rejecting the truth value of the claim said by that person.

f.e. "Therefore, Sam was is correct to think that bears like honey" ---> MAIN CONC: 'Bears like honey'

I would be looking for how my author supported the claim that bears like honey, not how he supported the claim that Sam was right about something.

So, the claim that "most eggs laid by any chicken w/o black feathers will be white" would seem like the MC. And, for Q36, if you ignore the "this has led her to conclude that" windup, then what's left is the conclusion.

If you include the "this has led her to conclude that" part, it doesn't suddenly become a premise.

WHY, author, should we believe that "most eggs laid by a non-black chicken will also be white"?
Because "something led Madeleine to conclude this"?

The only think I could say to defend the way we've represented this here is that the premise is about Madeleine's strength of evidence. So maybe someone could argue that THIS argument really IS about proving that someone is correct to believe X; i.e., it's not an argument about proving that X is true, it's about proving that someone is correct to believe X.

In that strained reading, saying things like "Why is she correct about X? Well because she made thousands observations and those observations led her to conclude X."

Anyhoo, I take your point that our books would probably call Q36 the conclusion, since Q37 is just saying the same thing, in "borrowed language".

[RogerD345]

Hi. Pat, thank you so much.

So. i am just making it clear. Pg. 250's (Drill. 41) q.36 and q. 37; at the end of the day, you would consider that they are two part series MC.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, basically. I think it's a weird example, because we interpret Q37 as concluding what Q36 says (minus the "this led her to conclude" prefix).

[PhoenNixN194]

If you don't think that we're right for each other
Well I'm a hustler and a player and you I'm not a stayer,
I know you wan draw card say me just can't perform. krunker