Self-study
Located in Detroit, MI. Looking for someone scoring around where I am. Maybe bounce ideas off one another.
Tumptytumtoes
- Joined
- Aug 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
Goal score: 180
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2026
Discussions
Tumptytumtoes
Thursday, Apr 9
@dh2303 which it doesn't. "Earth passes through clouds of cosmic dust that enters the atmosphere" this is essential to their hypothesis. They are saying that it is this dust not earth dust which causes the cooling.
C allows by analogy for the possibility of dust clouds cooling.
D isn't actually an argument by analogy because it doesn't help us establish any type of cooling that is occurring.
Think of it like this. Let's take away all preconceptions that dust can cause cooling. Maybe this is a radical claim and the scientist is treated as bonkers by the rest of the scientific world. Suppose they found tangential evidence like the event spoken of in B to support their claim and the whole community goes "oooo maybe it is possible."
Now suppose they never provided that evidence spoke of in the previous block. And provided the evidence "Large bits of rock can raise large amounts of dust." The scientific community is baffled. Why even raise this point, sir? This bears no weight! IT does no work! We thought you said that dust from space can cause cooling in the earth...? How might large bits of rock occasionally raising dust be related to this? In fact, we're starting to think that perhaps it's not this so called cosmic dust you spoke of before, but instead these large bits of space rock and the proceeding earth dust that is causing whatever this phenomenon is....Also, sir, did the dust even cool the earth? Why are you even mentioning this."" end scene
D is not inferential, you are projecting an inference that is not there. Partly, me thinks, because the choices leading up to D buttered you up for seeing reason in D that just ain't there.
Tumptytumtoes
Thursday, Apr 9
@dh2303 It just ain't post hoc, though. A doesn't need to say anything about cooling because you're misinterpreting the type of support A is providing. A isn't an argument by case/analogy A is ruling out potential temporal shifts. E isn't support through analogy either, it's evidential support reinforcing the theory. B just provides the idea that the dust could exist, just barely establishing circumstance but strengthening nonetheless.
I also think it's important to be skeptical of post hoc justifications but even on a meta level, like when we are fighting against a test and are desperately trying to reinforce our own reasoning.
I like the scale idea that cosmic rock could potentially be scalable to what we know as cosmic dust but that is once again outside evidence. On top of that, even if we concede the point that it is part of this cosmic dust; we still don't know that it cools the temp of earth, which is what we want in order to support our argument.
Hugely respect the amount of thought you've put into this, your reasoning is incredibly thorough and fun to read.
Tumptytumtoes
Thursday, Apr 9
@dh2303 D is actually not an argument by case the way that C seems to be. C is quite good because if temp drops occur from volcanic spewage then they should feasibly be able to drop from large amounts of cosmic dust.
D modulates the key so to speak. Instead of Cosmic dust, it's saying that large cosmic rock enter; this rock doesn't dim, but instead raises large amounts of dust from the earth's surface.
You might want to say that this gives the same evidence by case as C because dust is now in the atmosphere which cools it right?
BUT we actually are not given the fact that it cools it. All we are given in D is that dust rises from cosmic rock. No extra effects to support our argument.
I was really frustrated with this question for a bit but this way of thinking about it cleared it up for me.
Tumptytumtoes
Thursday, Apr 9
Changed AND improved. This is not suggested by the evidence provided..."may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the adoption of boiling" we are given textual evidence of "change" but not of "improve." This is a conjunction which is not satisfied therefore choosing it as supported is a contradiction...
Tumptytumtoes
Wednesday, Apr 8
@justmekonen283 author argues that it will undermine students knowledge of the rationale and uses a belief about how a technology of language might erode peoples capacity to remember. I think it's fair to say that the author's argument rests on some link between the two conceptions of what's being eroded and that seems to be a rather equivocal notion of knowledge, no?
Tumptytumtoes
Wednesday, Apr 8
@babachanianaren905 What if written language is a form of technology? Would it make less sense?
Tumptytumtoes
Wednesday, Apr 8
Holy shit, I looked at the wrong sentence. You had to connect the first sentence to the beginning of the second sentence....
Tumptytumtoes
Sunday, Mar 22
@minjungpark517248 The wording of this was weird to me as well.
(E) is saying that rights outweigh monetary considerations
in the context of the passage I think that this means that "rights" == "right not to be coerced"
But if they have a right not to be coerced then it is in the corporations best interest to pursue their monetary considerations, purely, without regard to performance considerations on the part of the employee
But the passage is saying that rights necessitate monetary considerations.
The passage is saying that rights outweigh performance considerations
But if rights outweighed monetary considerations then performance considerations would be our only option left, no?
This is the line of reasoning I used to rule out the possibility of strengthening the author's argument.
If anything, I think it would weaken the argument by saying that "rights" demand performance consideration by outweighing monetary considerations. Which is the opposite of what the author is trying to say.
Hope this helps, could be wrong...plus you're probably already a lawyer...
Tumptytumtoes
Sunday, Mar 22
Damn. Coercion is necessary. We already have the general rule, we don't need to redound upon it with an answer choice. This wouldn't strengthen because it wouldn't add anything new. Great explanation, completely missed that
Tumptytumtoes
Wednesday, Mar 18
It’s not clear how this answer is analogous to glorifying one’s self, one’s history, or portraying events as inevitable.""
Yeah, beg to differ here. Imagine you're a doctor, you're an authority on something. In other words you glorify yourself. You develop a course of action, regardless of the effects of this action relative to other courses, this ends up being the best course of action. Why? Because you, in all your glory, created it.
Tumptytumtoes
Monday, Mar 16
This is a wild take. Where are we ever given textual evidence that Fidelio was more widely accepted later?
Tumptytumtoes
Monday, Mar 16
I just don't think its primary function was to show this.
This had already been shown in the previous paragraph.
This paragraph did a bit more and I was looking for an answer choice that reflected that.
Tumptytumtoes
Wednesday, Mar 11
This is a type of mistaken reversal. So the class of self disparagement contains people who compare, but there are other things outside of comparing, perhaps, that lead to self disparagement. Same logic can be applied to the class of dismissive people. Simply removing those parts of the classes don't rule out the possibility of still falling into those classes.
Tumptytumtoes
Monday, Mar 9
@BethTaylor But the scientists know that it's a different reaction.
We aren't assuming away the idea that the protein might cause a different reaction and lead to a misdiagnosis.
They're assuming that something else can't cause the exact same reaction and then cause a misdiagnosis.
Thanks for the comment so I could revisit it.
Tumptytumtoes
Edited Monday, Mar 9
@Stas1973
If my level of confidence is high does that negatively affect how i perceive the economy? Positively? Does (A) explicitly give us a direction?
The stim does, though. Maybe the media critic's argument is flawed cuz it takes (A) for granted, even.
We want the overlooked possibility from the economist, though. Given (D) it ain't wrong to think that negative news reports can harm the economy because of the very studies the economist cited as a counter.
Thank you for pointing this out. A is not wrong for the reason I cited before. Good looks.
Tumptytumtoes
Thursday, Mar 5
It enumerates AN argument that proceeds to be rebutted in the proceeding paragraph.
Tumptytumtoes
Wednesday, Mar 4
Pushback against A: "virtually every culture" and you use "didn't occur in medieval europe as a counterexample? C'mon...
Tumptytumtoes
Friday, Feb 20
Can't even really be superficially convincing if he doesn't even manage to explain something, right? At that point it's just unrealistic.
I think unconvincing would be a better word but unfortunately it doesn't map to "superficially convincing"
Tumptytumtoes
Friday, Feb 20
A )So this one is a bit iffy.
Harm comes about from actively bringing down a persons utility, right? So let's say person A could take substance X and let's say he had 100hp and substance X brought him down to 95.
Substance Y brought him to 105
Substance Z brought him to 100.
Let's say that substance Z is the herbal remedy in question.
The conclusion still stands even if he could be (potentially) having substance Y. Substance Z is not harming him.
Just because a possible benefit could result doesn't mean that it weakens the idea that another result definitely comes about.
We assume that the herbs specifically are safe to consume.
B) doesn't work because it's talking about effectiveness, which we know nothing about, only "safe to consume"
C) is a good answer because it's a good reason to believe that we shouldn't "always be allowed" to prescribe them.
D) some weird ad hominem attack
E) we already know that nothing has been proven about their effects, only that they are safe to consume. Tells us nothing new.
Bottom line is that choosing A is delusion.
Tumptytumtoes
Friday, Feb 20
The issue with this explanation is that the stimulus never says that their hourly wage is higher. You have to piece it together.
No one determines their hourly wage. A fare will always be a fare. But if they are getting more fares per hour, then they are making more money per hour.
The stim provides clear evidence that they work shorter hours, not longer ones.
Tumptytumtoes
Monday, Feb 16
One thing I struggled with in choosing A was the "nervous system" language. It just isn't really mentioned as an end for all this stuff. We get a lot about nerve cells, but nothing about the nervous system as a whole.
The solution to this is a bit of synthesis. If we are developing nerve cells, are we not contributing to the overarching system?
More formally, by focusing on the parts collectively we are addressing problems of the whole.
@dh2303 Oh, I see. So you're saying because large bits do enter, boom, that's just like dust, there's evidence of it happening. And lo, large amounts of dust do occur, boom, there we go it's just like stim.
To me that's less obviously support. It seems completely detached.
Do you mean taxonomically rendering it as like a similar type of event that belongs to a separate genus of cause? Because I'd argue that you can't even say that these are similar types. Dust from earth's surface is different than dust from space, let alone dust from earth's surface that doesn't even cool.
I'm sorry for mistaking how you were approaching the question. I know where you're at though. This is like stage 4 fuck this test mode. I've been there. 'specially with some recent reading comp sections.