Q22 - Consumer advocate: There is no

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, it's exactly what you said.

If I say "Charlie threw the basketball into the hoop, and as a result of the ball going through the hoop, the crowd cheered", then

DIRECT CAUSE = ball going through the hoop
INDIRECT CAUSE = Charlie threw the basketball

[sahilmillwala]

[quote="ohthatpatrick"]

Quick question on this one. Usually in necc assumption questions when we see a new idea in the conclusion the right answer almost always addresses it. Would that be a good strategy on this question? Since only two of the answer choices mentioned the government and responsibility i was able to eliminate the rest quickly. lmk

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, it was the "as a result".

DIRECTLY causing something means that you are the immediate precursor.
INDIRECTLY causing something means that there was at least one intervening cause/effect pair.

I pushed Beth and that caused her drink to spill on her. As a result, she went home to change her shirt.
MY PUSHING --> SPILLED DRINK --> WET SHIRT --> BETH GOES HOME TO CHANGE

I was the DIRECT cause of the spilled drink.
I was the INDIRECT cause of her going home.

[DPCTE4325]

Yes, it was the "as a result".

DIRECTLY causing something means that you are the immediate precursor.
INDIRECTLY causing something means that there was at least one intervening cause/effect pair.

I pushed Beth and that caused her drink to spill on her. As a result, she went home to change her shirt.
MY PUSHING --> SPILLED DRINK --> WET SHIRT --> BETH GOES HOME TO CHANGE

I was the DIRECT cause of the spilled drink.
I was the INDIRECT cause of her going home.

Hi Patrick,

I just wanted to say thank you for single-handedly improving my LR score. Your method of arguing for the "anti-conclusion" has helped so much. I'm actually writing to you via this post because I wanted to ask under what circumstances should I NOT use the anti-conclusion method? Currently I use them for weakening, flaw, and NA questions.

However, I've noticed that I'm unable to use this method for certain flaw type questions. For example, PT 81, S3, Q15. I actually left a question for you on that post as well. I would love to hear your thoughts on how I can "adapt" the anti conclusion approach for that type of flaw question. I'd appreciate if you could get to it. Thank you so much!