- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Pretty non-traditional student but I just feel very intimidated looking at all of the admissions communities (reddit, tiktok, here) with people posting doom and gloom about their 3.7s and 170+s.
I graduated from the US Military Academy (West Point) back in 2020 and have spent the past 6 years and change in the army including a combat deployment to Iraq. I'm really hoping that this non-traditional experience will help me out and get me into some solid schools.
I've been really trying to focus on what I can control, my personal essay, my resume, etc. I've finished my personal statement (I think its lowkey a banger but it might just be your run-of-the-mill army guy essay ngl). Currently looking at applying to schools in the 40-100+ ranking with my absolute number 1 being Oklahoma.
Am I cooked?
Rule 1: justified only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business.
Now consider two conclusions: access is justified versus access if not justified. Which conclusion is reachable via the first rule? Access is not justified. That is a reachable conclusion. To reach it, we just need to trigger the rule contrapositively. In other words, we need a premise establishing that the computer is not typically used in the operation of a business. The conclusion that access is justified is unreachable via this rule.
I got this question right but you have lost me entirely here. How is justified an unreachable conclusion via this rule. How is it not
Computer typically used in business -> Justified
Instead we're contrapositing the rule??? I genuinely don't understand. Is it just because of the grammar that we are interpreting the original rule as
Justified -> computer typically used in business
and turning it into
/computer typically used in business -> /justified
I just don't understand how using rule 1 we cant reach the conclusion that someone is justified. Especially when it says "One is justified if X".
Is this just sufficiency, necessity again? -_-
@tswalker83 Reading the question stem first is really the key for these I think, in terms of time. By the time you're done reading the first author, you should likely be able to infer what the second author will disagree with, allowing you to read the second author with the focus of understanding the specific point theyre disagreeing with. When you finish the second author, you should be able to put in your own words what they disagree with and then just hunt for the answer that matches.
I'm with another commenter that it seems that either the current version is or the previous version was way off. I went from a good mix of reaches, targets and safeties to all super-reaches...this is extraordinarily disheartening.