RULE: Captions should be split into individual caption groups such that whole phrases, nouns, sentences, and flow of dialogue is interrupted as minimally as possible, while abiding by the 60 character limit.

WHY: This allows the captions to be easily read by the viewer, with logical breaks and enough time on screen.

 

Split captions...

after terminal punctuation
before conjunctions
before prepositions: 
 Now, we're not here to say that you're going to get like a billion more formal logic questions or everything's going to be formal logic. What is that? There might be a couple more questions that are testing on your ability to handle conditional states. With that being the case, it would behoove us to do a little bit of practice with some questions that have formal logic.

Let me know in the chat, what types of questions do we normally see formal logic appearing? Where is that likely to pop up? Super popular in inference. We're definitely going to look at some of that. Can happen in parallel reasoning.

Joshua, you're right. Since I already did one parallel with you, though, I'm not going to do another. Our parallel channel lesson has some good ones, though.

Sufficient assumption. Vanessa, absolutely. And also, in law.

Law can have it as well. So, we're going to do a couple of those questions to give you some more practice with formal logic in logical reasoning. Again, all of this is coming from your lesson book.

If it looks familiar, great. Just goes to show you've already practiced things we're predicting will be on your test. So, this is on page 255.

Taking a look at this question stem. What sort of question are we dealing with right here, everybody? This is very nice. Sufficient assumption.

We know that because we see assumed and we see if. Second, you see if with assumed. That's going to guarantee sufficient assumption.

Now, you could also know that this is very likely to have formal logic. Just at a glance, because of what? About this stimulus. It's so short.

Yeah, back in the day when I was studying, I would be so excited when I would see this question. I'd be like, oh, thank goodness. It's nice and short.

That'll be nice and easy. Oh, no. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

If you see a tiny question, that is usually going to be a very formal logic heavy question that is challenging. Even though this is question seven, I would totally skip this. And of course, anytime you're skipping a question, always fill in a guest letter, always flag so you can come back to it later.

Now, people are also right that if you look through it, you will see language like any, you'll see no, you'll see any here. And that would also signal that formal logic is taking place. Now, we're going to do a couple of these formal logic questions.

So, this first one, we're going to do as a team to make sure everyone's feeling comfortable, and then we'll set you loose on the next. All right. So, go and let me know what would be the formal logic for the first sentence of evidence? How would we write that out on our scratch paper? Good job.

When we see the any, the any is the same as if. So, we can read that just as, oh, if it's infected, then we would know it to be rotten. By the way, the reason why you see me writing INF for infected is my eyes would catch that inspected is going to be showing up soon.

And I do want to make sure that I am clearly differentiating between infected and inspected. And yeah, if you do want to write out more of that word, if you want to write like infect or something for it, you certainly could. Great answers in the chat.

Vanessa, Mimi, Brianna, and she got very nice. Oh, and by the way, the reason why you don't see me including the fruit aspect, if anyone was just in our formal logic lesson earlier today about Starburst, it's the exact same thing. If a word is ubiquitous, like if it's applying to everything, you don't need to write it every time.

So, we're talking about fruits that are infected and fruits that are rotten. So, we don't need to bother to include the fruit. Okay.

Next one gets a little sneaky because it's got a no going on. How would we translate this? I'm doing a no. Oh, I'm seeing some good answers there.

So yeah, when you see a no, what that's going to do is it's going to negate your necessary term. So, you want to imagine this no moving to what your necessary term is, which in this case is the infected aspect. And that's where it's going to become negative.

So, as people are telling me, this is if a fruit is inspected, then it is not infected. So again, if a fruit is inspected, then it is not infected. So not quite.

You want to go ahead and move that no over. I used to say like, no guys like romantic comedies. A no is moving to the secondary term and then negating.

Total lie though. Guys love romantic comedies like myself. But continuing onward to the next stage, there's two different places your thoughts might be going.

On the one hand, you might be asking yourself if you could combine this information, something else we talked about in our first channel lesson today, and others of you might immediately be looking at this conclusion. Let's just take a moment though and talk about this evidence. Can we easily create a chain of information with this evidence? Can we? Really? What's that chain going to be? What would the chain show up as? So if I contrapose the first one, because what I'd be trying to do is to get these infected to match each other, right? Because right now one is positive, one is negative.

But let's say, just for instance, the contrapose at the top would be if no rotten, then not infected. But even if I have that, notice that my not infected are on the same side as each other. And that's not how we normally connect things together.

The way you would connect something together is if we had an A to B to a B to C, that would then let us make A to C. That's not the sort of logic we're getting with us. So that can potentially mean that one of those sentences of evidence is really a red herring, and we're really not going to be using it to get to the right answer. Let's go and talk about that conclusion.

So, what is the formal logic for the conclusion in this question, everybody? Yeah, it says any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat. So, the any is that if, as we talked about, and this is saying any fruit that was inspected, so was inspected, is thus safe to eat. Inspected, safe.

All right, good. I'm seeing some great answers here. Again, the exact amount you write out is up to you.

I noticed a lot of people are writing a little bit more, so I made my match. I went and put safe before ROT for rotten, and so there we have it. Great.

Now we've got to figure out our job. What is the test we can use in sufficient assumption questions to help us get to the right answer, everybody? Use the proof test for mismatch concepts, and all this is is saying that the evidence plus the assumption will equal the conclusion. That's our goal.

The right answer, if we added it to the evidence, would guarantee that the conclusion is happening. So, I want you to think about these pieces. We've got the infected to rotten, we've got the inspected to not infected, and we're adding something to that that's then going to let us say 100% for sure, oh yeah, if it's been inspected, it is absolutely safe to eat.