User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2780
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q22 - Consumer advocate: There is no

by ohthatpatrick Tue May 30, 2017 8:03 pm

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
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: April 07th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q22 - Consumer advocate: There is no

by sahilmillwala Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:17 pm

[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
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2780
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q22 - Consumer advocate: There is no

by ohthatpatrick Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:14 am

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
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: June 11th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q22 - Consumer advocate: There is no

by DPCTE4325 Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:51 am

ohthatpatrick wrote: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!