Self-study
CartierCook
- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
LSAT
157
CAS GPA
3.5
1L START YEAR
2027
Applications
Alabama
In process
Alabama
In process
Boston University
In process
Boston University
In process
Columbia
In process
Columbia
In process
Cornell
In process
Cornell
In process
Duke
In process
Duke
In process
FSU
In process
FSU
In process
Georgetown
In process
Georgetown
In process
Harvard
In process
Harvard
In process
Northwestern
In process
Northwestern
In process
Notre Dame
In process
Notre Dame
In process
NYU
In process
NYU
In process
Pepperdine
In process
Pepperdine
In process
Stanford
In process
Stanford
In process
UChicago
In process
UChicago
In process
UCLA
In process
UCLA
In process
U Florida
In process
U Florida
In process
UT Austin
In process
UT Austin
In process
Vanderbilt
In process
Vanderbilt
In process
Yale
In process
Yale
In process
@_ The argument here is that there is no need to look further for an explanation, with the reasoning being that the difference in methods of investigation explains the difference in results. This reasoning only works if different methods would always lead to different results. If different methods do not always produce different results, then further explanation would be needed. If two different methods can yield identical results then their argument collapses, which points out the flaw of the missing justification for why different methods leads to difference in results means that no further explanation is needed. This was my interpretation, at least. I hope this helps!