zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi Karishma
VeritasPrepKarishma Frankly, I did read your explanation, and my interpretation is that , based on the discovery, the paleontologists conclude the hypothesis that Sandactylus flew by flapping, in other words, paleontologists fist got the discovery, then conclude a hypothesis from the discovery,
per your explanation, you point out a reverse logic that paleontologists first suppose Sandactylus did have heat generated from flapping if E is assumption, did i miss something or misunderstand?
When i reviewed this question yesteday, i tried to analyse E by myself, then new question came up,
Assumption is defined --an unstated evidence, without assumption, the author won't believe the conclusion is true.
E is bit complex, i simplify E,
flapping generats heat, and the heat CANNOT be dispersed without blood vessels.
in other word, no blood vessel , no dispersed heat,
Am I right?
then, i think if Sandactylus has blood vessel, then they can dispersed the heat,
right?it meants blood vessel is necessary to dispersed heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping.
because Sandactylus has blood vessel, so it can disperse heat generated in flapping, then provide the evidence that sandactylus flew by flapping its wings,not just by gliding.
I am not sure where is incorrect.
If i use negative skill, then i think E break the argument.
(E) Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings in flight
could not COULD have been dispersed by anything other than the blood vessels in its wings.
then negative (E) means there are other ways to disperse the heat generated by flapping.
so the discovery that sandactylus has blood vessels does not provide evidence for the hypothesis,
Does it weaken ? I think it does weaken.
Would you please point out the errors of my reasoning
Please ~~~
Have a nice day
>_~
Hi
mikemcgarry,
GMATNinjaTwo,
GMATNinja,
MagooshExpert Carolyn, @sayantanc2,@VeritasPrepKarishma
i think i got one of my reasoning problems , but new question came up , genuinely need you help to confirm.
here is my incorrect reasoningbecause Sandactylus has blood vessel, so it can disperse heat generated in flapping, then provide the evidence that sandactylus flew by flapping its wings,not just by gliding.-- is
incorrect.
Please check following(E) Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings in flight could not have been dispersed by anything other than the blood vessels in its wings.zoezhuyan wrote:
E is bit complex, i simplify E,
flapping generats heat, and the heat CANNOT be dispersed without blood vessels.
in other word, no blood vessel , no dispersed heat, Am I right?
up to there, i hold my reasoning
zoezhuyan wrote:
then, i think if Sandactylus has blood vessel, then they can dispersed the heat, right?
it meants blood vessel is necessary to dispersed heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping.
because Sandactylus has blood vessel, so it can disperse heat generated in flapping, then provide the evidence that sandactylus flew by flapping its wings,not just by gliding.
here, i think my reasoning --because Sandactylus has blood vessel, so it can disperse heat generated in flapping, then provide the evidence that sandactylus flew by flapping its wings,not just by gliding.-- is incorrect.
i reviewed the following
mikemcgarry wrote:
These are the words "necessary" and "sufficient." One way to say it is as follows:
"A is necessary for B." Here we know that if A doesn't happen, then B would not happen. If A does happen, then it may or may not be true that B can happen.
mikemcgarry wrote:
The word "sufficient" summaries the opposite relationship.
"A is sufficient for B." This means that if A happens, we know that B must be true; in other words, A is a guarantee for B. If A doesn't happen, then B may or may not be true.
so i think E is a
necesary assumption, in other words, blood vessel is necessary assumption to dispersed heated generated by flapping
if sandactylus has blood vessels, it maybe dispered heated generated by flapping, maybe not.
So my rasoning is incorrect.
Wait a minute,
a new problem,according the stimulus,
Networks of blood vessels in bats' wings serve only to disperse heat generated in flight. This heat is generated only because bats flap their wings.Can i then get that
Sandaytlus can disperse heat generated in flapping, then provide the evidence that sandactylus flew by flapping its wings, not just by gliding ?Further confused between assumption, necessary assumption.
Is necessary assumption a branch of assumption?
An assumption is unstated something that the author must believe to be true in order to draw a certain conclusion
Does it mean if the assumption happens, it can lead to the conclusion?
A is necessary for B, if A doesn't happen, then B would not happen.
necessary assumption is a branch of assumption?
i am still confused the following:
Quote:
I am not sure where is incorrect.
If i use negative skill, then i think E break the argument.
(E) Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings in flight could not COULD have been dispersed by anything other than the blood vessels in its wings.
then negative (E) means there are other ways to disperse the heat generated by flapping.
so the discovery that sandactylus has blood vessels does not provide evidence for the hypothesis,
Does it weaken ?
I think it does weaken.
All, please help,
Thank in advance
Have a nice day
>_~