- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
"Records reveal that of physical therapy patients who received less than six weeks of treatment, about 31 percent showed major improvement, regardless of whether they were treated by a general practitioner or by a specialist."
^^
this segment means hey, in six weeks
group A: treated by general practitioner = 31% major improvement
group B: treated by a specialist = 31% showed major improvement
-------
"Of patients who received physical therapy for a longer time, again regardless of whether they were treated by a general practitioner or by a specialist, about 50 percent showed major improvement."
^^
this segment means hey, in 6+ weeks
group A: treated by general practitioner = 50% showed major improvement
group B: treated by a specialist = 50% showed major improvement
--------
"Therefore, the choice between seeing a specialist or a general practitioner for necessary physical therapy will not affect one's chances of major improvement."
^^
then we get the conclusion saying that...
obvi the choice between which type of provider you choose does not affect your chances of major improvement
um yes it does?
maybe that population was going to that provider because it DID matter and THAT is why the rates were able to stay relevant to each other
you CANNOT assume just because rates stay even means it doesn't matter the person doing them, maybe that is WHY the rates are (which is E)
BUT FIRST YOU NEED TO REALIZE THE PERCENTAGES ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH PROVIDERS
frustrated because how am I supposed to assume they are drawing from representative samples if it doesn't say that!! that is an assumption that is vulnerable to criticism:)))))))
#beangryandthenlearnbruh
hey, and now that i went back
we really don't care how many went to either because....... PERCENTAGES!!
they don't need to be the same amount
this is an example of understanding that the stim is not saying "regardless of whether they were treated by a GP or an S" is meaning that they are being misrepresented WITHIN the percentage
but
to conclude that they are being equally represented WITHIN the percentage
this THEN leads us to the ACTUAL flaw (E)
which we can see as hey!! who they see does matter!
we cannot assume that the percentages (that are representative) weren't representative because the professions did matter to who they were treating
should not have released it
BECAUSE
bro didn't ask/consult ANYone
A tells us the bridge is
most had to first give their consent
if most had to give consent and we didn't ask anybody? then we really should not have release that report
THIS actually triggers the stim the right way
C tells us the bridge is
hey if even one person has a reservation then we cannot release it
this actually doesn't matter because we do not know if they do because they were NOT consulted (we know that from the stim) so therefore we just cannot say that bridges it- it just doesn't trigger the stim right
D tells us the bridge is
every person had said yes IF they were consulted
again, doesn't trigger the stim- they were not consulted so we don't know if they would have agreed so we don't know if they should not release it
i thought that the issue is the consulting
bro just needed to consult to be able to release it
he so silly
he say that uh you an idiot bc what you reference is exactly the contrapositive of what i said. you prove my point. the condition i gave wasn't met (did not obtain no change- there was change made) so duh it is stronger. silly idiot helps my argument!
bro is saying
hey yeah, that condition (state of affairs) that i gave (not changed) was actually not met (was changed) (did not obtain)
the condition of my prediction was not obtained
this felt so unnatural because it was NOT being met while the condition was NOT changing and that just hurts my soul tbh
stupid double negative
@EmilieRupprecht
you can't compare it because they are just different anyway?
@EmilieRupprecht
OR is it that edgewater is just on a whole different plane- like who cares if they are similar illnesses- we get told in C that they tend to be different and that is the truth of the matter
you know? im lost
i understood they were two subsets- but i reasoned this way
let's say that the University Hospital drops their length of stay for those similar illnesses, this still effects their average stay length. they technically could drop the average EVEN IF the rest stayed the same
and that is why i ignored C
like you can ignore that they treat different illnesses but still drop to lower stays for the similar illnesses and see a drop in AVERAGE stay
Like is it because the AC says "tend to be treated" so we can assume that the MAJORITY of cases being treated are different and even if you did drop your stays for the similar illnesses it wouldn't effect the average because it was such a small fraction anyway?????
#help
insane question but i needed to understand that the referential of "the earnings of THESE people" references the people who would've died.
I understood it as the people who were doing the transporting were getting paid more (safe to say I was lost in the ACs lol)
we are comparing a world where those people would've died and therefore, lost their jobs (rip)
and
a world where they would live and employment would remain the same
trying to show that people will not reduce smoking
C tells us they will probably just move to smoke
I was thinking that because it is out of the city we care about, we don't care if it raises over there (even if they did move and we saw a decrease in our own city) BUT it does matter because the conclusion is "reduction in smoking" that is general. could be anywhere, we just want the TOTAL amount of people to stop smoking- there is no boundary to that
bro is saying
hey this isn't real because we don't know this thing about it
'this'- determinism
'thing'- complete state
so what?
we don't need to know that obscure thing to know that the state of the universe exists at some time
IT IS UNWARRANTED TO ASSUME THAT UNWARRANTED MEANS THIS OTHER THING IS MORE PLAUSIBLE
you can't make that conclusion (it is unwarranted) because this MIGHT have happened
and
if there is a chance that this happened then too bad too sad, unwarranted conclusion for you
(lowkey spitting bars)
bro goes hey i dont think your reasons are wrong but that something else caused your reasons to happen and therefore, there is a different origin
the stim is claiming that IMPLICITLY that the
book --> improved family health which then --> fewer visits
D points out that out:
there is this jump in the link
the conclusion is that
the book --> family health
BUT all we know is that
the book --> fewer visits
the conclusion is using some false premise
"Since improved family health leads to fewer visits to doctors"
to justify that we can throw in this "family health" section of the link
D is like uh no- we could have
family health --> fewer visits
and
book --> fewer visits
but that does not mean the chain links (in other words they do not causally contribute to each other)
"typical of chess game" doesn't automatically assume that it is a whole DIFFERENT game.
it means it could be within the SAME game (chess) and still not do well because it isn't "typical" of how a chess game should go
it is more like what if a random guy came and played and they were doing crazy moves that were not at all how a person normally (typically plays chess)
this is a silly analogy but i played collegiate soccer and the hardest defenders were the people you would play in pick up that didn't actually know how to play soccer and would defend you in ways that you didn't train or practice for (because they had no skill) and so suddenly you were no longer exceptional because the defending wasn't normal or... say it with me now: TYPICAL
so DO NOT assume just because it said it wasn't typical in a certain area DOES NOT mean that it still couldn't happen within the SAME game
weakened the fact that a notably ethical action is not actually the standard for high ethical standards and
THEREFORE
should not be publicize if the criteria to publicize is that they are meeting high ethical standards
no assumptions are being made in the stim (so not D)
he is saying: that this theory claims this can't be true and guess what? i just gave you an example that shows that the claim CAN be true
this is how I found which "two different state of affairs" was actually referencing to:
UNDERSTAND that "to the same effect" in D means that we are looking for the two things that are leading to the SAME effect
book lead to less visits
improved family health leads to less visits
THAT is how we know what "two state of affairs" they are referencing
if it was having a medical book and not having a medical book it could not "contribute to the SAME effect" (because not having one did NOT lead to less visits)
my natural was to think the "two" was the two different sets in the experiment but that is not what AC D is asking
i feel like it is important to note the "WHY" from george's question
this means that Boris has to explain WHY it is getting big now- which he does not (he says what is happening)
Has LSAC released what their point is by making it harder to highlight??
i have to complain just once and then i will move on and submit to the change but I CANNOT STAND THE NEW HIGHLIGHTING FEATURE
i know i know it is LSAC. but like bruh. i see no reason to change it but for the reason to make it take longer to highlight. which actually does not make ANY logical sense to me.
SO much of law school involves highlighting- also to change orange to green is criminal
it's not that big of a deal but enough to bother me less than a month out from test day.
my biggest peeve with it is that it doesn't just stay the color you choose- it resets every question (at least from my brief usage with the new feature)
WHATEVER.
gotta accept it and overcome the change
I think where I got lost was that the reason given for it not being likely that it was a living thing was
"because a nanobe is too small to contain a reproductive mechanism"
which leads to
"a prerequisite for life".
SOOOOO i was naturally predicting something that will show that hey being that SMALL is actually not too relevant to being alive.
...
this lead me to LOVE C, because it gave us plausibility that the size wasn't relevant because hey! these scientists claim that a bacteria was the same size and well, bacteria is a living thing. i was like broooo, that was light, next!
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
2 reasons why:
the ACTUAL substance was the reproductive MECHANISM. It doesn't really matter of the size as much as does it have a reproductive mechanism. i partly dismissed B because I was treating 'mechanism' as an organ of sorts (wasn't allowed help) but what B describes is literally a 'reproductive mechanism'.
hey what those scientists claim (think) is irrelevant till proven and we do NOT know if it is proven. therefore C, means nothing until it says they are accurate with their claim!