Argument Review

Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the overall correctness of one's total set of beliefs is by leaving it unchanged, except when there is adequate evidence to reject one of those beliefs. This gives a person two options: either to leave the set unchanged or to reject existing beliefs. Over time, one can only have fewer and fewer beliefs. Since people need many beliefs to survive, these statisticians are wrong.

What I'm looking for: First thing that jumped out to me with the premise that over time one can only have fewer and fewer beliefs. I thought this was an error because doesn't that overlook the possibility that one just never changes their belief set. No AC touched on this. The Stats people are describing the theoretical surest way to increase correctness of a belief set. That being the case, the author introduces a red herring argument because survival has nothing to do with increasing the correctness of belief sets.

A: Correct answer choice. The author assumes that the ability to survive must not be hindered. But says who? Overall correctness of belief goes up either way.

B: Incorrect. The stimulus says that beliefs cannot be added to a set.

C: SO?

D: Descriptively inaccurate.

E: Completely irrelevant.

Argument Review

Out of 100 people surveyed, 50% believe (I → R) and 30% believe (R → C). Therefore, more people believe (I → R) than (C→R)

What I'm looking for: I first thought the flaw had to do with percentages. Upon analyzing the argument I realized it is correct in saying that more people in the sample believe the former rather than the latter (wont say that about the population because we dont know how well the survey was conducted).

A: Accurate but not the flaw. We can make inferences about the population from samples.

B: Correct answer. The conclusion brings up an idea that flips S/N conditions in the latter belief.

C: Inaccurate.

D: Inaccurate; the argument does not talk about a singular belief in the conclusion.

E: Inaccurate.

@ said:

And to add to the questions, when did you submit your app?

I've been wondering if this cycle has proven to be as abnormal for applicants who submitted "early" in October or if the applicants from Dec/Jan/Feb are the ones mainly feeling what appears to be an increase in holds and waitlists.

Same! I applied a couple days before New Years.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Congrats on this. Im actually curious about this. Got held at a another school and wondering how to approach this.

check out the link that @ posted in the thread! pretty helpful.

Thanks. Good luck on columbia. I hope they accept you. Are your goals biglaw?

Yeah, only thing is that I am pretty set on practicing in CA... but Columbia is in my top 3 so I'm going to try to do whatever I can to move the needle.

@ said:

@ what were you stats if you don't mind me asking? Curious about the hold pool as well.

3.6/ 163

@ said:

Congrats on this. Im actually curious about this. Got held at a another school and wondering how to approach this.

check out the link that @ posted in the thread! pretty helpful.

@ said:

I don't have much insight on this, but you should definitely check this out.

https://classic.7sage.com/admissions/lesson/loci-dos/

thank you for sending this over, extremely helpful!

@ said:

Did they provide a reason for the hold?

Yes... they essentially said that the candidate pool is one of the largest and most qualified, so they need more time to consider my application within the context of this kind of candidate pool. I've read that it's essentially a courtesy email and that it means I simply have to wait longer.

This is a necessary assumption question. There argument proceeds as follows:

In 2003, scientists detected methane in Mars's atmosphere. Methane falls apart when hit by UV in sunlight. Therefore, any methane in Mars's atmosphere must have been released relatively recently.

What I'm looking for: There is a jump from premise to conclusion. Our premises tell us that methane was detected and that this methane falls apart when exposed to UV. How does this support the conclusion? Isn't there a possibility that there is methane that has lurked in the martian atmosphere for centuries?

A. This is unnecessary. So what if there was methane before 2003?

B. Correct AC. This is necessary because if negated, then there exists the possibility that there is some methane that is never exposed to UV. If this is the case, then the argument does not hold since this can very well be the methane in the martian atmosphere.

C. So what if methane can be detected before it begins to fall apart? We don't need this to be true.

D. Unnecessary.

E. Irrelevant.

This is a PMOR question:

Stimulus: Some research has claimed that higher apes have the capacity for language but have never used it, a highly unlikely claim. That is like saying an animal has wings suitable for flight but has never thought to use them.

A. Incorrect, does not adequately parallel the stimulus. Could be right if said "arguing that some humans have the capacity to sleep but never do is like saying some lions who have the opportunity to eat meat never do."

B. Wrong.

C. Correct answer; this AC parallels the analogy used in the stimulus by presenting something advantageous (telekinesis) and pairing that with an example of a insect having legs but never using them.

D. Incorrect because 1) you have to assume that tobacco and alcohol are positive things and 2) the last sentence says a society that knows how to brew alcohol does not drink it instead of saying that a society that knows how to brew does not brew.

E. Wrong.

Contract Law/ IP Law/ Entertainment (particularly in music and sports). We got this y'all! Happy studying!

Count me in!! Will be sitting in for Dec

NA Blocking

P: Reducing class size means that more teachers will need to be hired.

P: There is a shortage of qualified teachers in the REGION.

P: Smaller classrooms, although beneficial to some extent, hurts education when teachers are underqualified.

C: Reducing class size is unlikely to improve overall student achievement.

NA prediction: isn't it possible that qualified teachers from other regions can be brought in?

A: Not necessary. Negating this statement does not wreck our argument.

B: Not necessary. If we negate it translates to... if we reduce class sizes, none of the qualified teachers will be able to improve overall student improvement. this does not wreck the argument. We still have a shortage of qualified teachers in the area and the conclusion still stands.

C: irrelevant.

D: Negation goes... Most or all teachers are underqualified but hiring more teachers would improve the achievement of some students. Not necessary. Some students =/= all students.

E: correct answer; this must be true... if not, there is a possibility that qualified teachers can be brought from other regions, which wrecks the argument.

Flaw question type. There are two flaws in this argument. It proceeds as follows:

P: We have the best players in the city.

SC/ MP: Therefore, we have the best team.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

P: The best team in the city will be most likely to win the championship.

C: We will almost certainly win the championship this year.

The first flaw is a part v. whole flaw. The characteristic of having the best players doesn't ensure that this characteristic transfers up to the team. The second flaw is that the argument equates most likely to win with have a %50+ chance of winning. Take this scenario for example:

Team 1: 25%

Team 2: 30%

Team 3: 20%

Team 4: 25%

Team 3 is the most likely to win the championship, but it is more likely that they don't win (since there is a 70% chance that they don't win). These are arbitrary numbers but they embody the flaw. D is the correct answer choice because it picks up on this notion.

This is an evaluate question. There argument proceeds:

There's this prehistoric Bolivian cities that were able to transport heavy stones over long distances. To try to explain this, experimenters built reed boats and transported a heavy stone under the same circumstances as the prehistoric society. They built the boat using local materials and traditional methods.

Experiments hypothesize, then, that reed boats were used in this civilization during prehistoric times to transport the stones.

The assume here is that prehistoric and traditional mean the same thing. Does prehistoric imply traditional? Maybe, but maybe not. This makes answer A correct. Knowing whether the traditional methods for reed boat building were in fact in use during prehistoric times, the argument is strengthened. If not, it is weakened.

D is a little tricky. It states "whether greed A stones are the heaviest stones at the site. This is incorrect because we don't really care if other stones are bigger than A stones. So what if they are? We just care about the A stones.

I say the answer choice is tricky because the stimulus is pretty ambiguous as to whether the "up to 40 tons" of A stones at the site is collective or just a single stone. I think it means collectively, because if not the stimulus has an even wider gaping whole since the experimenters only transported a stone weighing 9 tons. Regardless, its tricky because it does play off of this idea involving the weight of the stones in the stimulus. Its still incorrect however.

This is a RRE question. The stimulus goes as follows:

On average, people have reduced the amount of red meat they eat by one-half over the last two decades. However, on average, their fat consumption substantially exceeds the fat consumption those who have not reduced their red meat consumption.

If group A reduced their fat consumption by 1/2 on average, then how can it be that group B consumes less fat on average then group A does? What explains both phenomena?

A. Incorrect... does not resolve the tension... why does group A consume more fat on average despite cutting down on red meat?

B. Incorrect for the same reason A is wrong.

C. This is a tricky answer choice because of the language used... if not carefully parsed out, it makes an attractive wrong answer choice. But C is also incorrect. It actually further confounds the tension between both phenomena. If both groups are consuming the same amount of other fatty foods, then one would expect that group A would consume less fat since they have cut down on red meat. So this doesn't explain either.

D. Correct answer choice. This explains both phenomena. Sure group A reduced their consumption of red meat but they replaced it with FATTIER foods such as cheese and baked goods. Since group B is presumably eating the same amount of red meat, this AC explains why group A is consuming more fat. Yes they cut down on red meat, but they increased their intake of other fatty foods.

E. Irrelevant.

This is a necessary assumption question.

Argument: the staff reductions in a region are said to be causing those who have kept their jobs to cut back on purchases. However, actual spending by such people is undiminished, since there has been no unusual increase in the amount of money held by those people in savings accounts.

What I am looking for: the argument is suggesting that activities in savings accounts is an indicator of spending for these people. If I save x amount, I'm spending y amount. The assumption here is that there are only two places where money can go for this population. I am looking for an AC that plays on this idea.

A: Correct Answer choice. It is essentially saying that for these people, money is not going to debt collectors. If you negate, the result is "some people who have debts are paying back their debt at an accelerated rate". This wrecks the argument because now, for some people, their money is being spread out three ways. So what if the savings activity has remained constant? They are paying more of their debt off which decreases their spending in other areas.

B: Incorrect- this AC seems to weaken our argument since it introduces yet another way for these people to use their money. If this AC was rephrased as a blocking type, it would be correct.

C: Who cares what they make at new jobs?

D: No one cares about this either.

E: Incorrect, this statistic is irrelevant to our stimulus. We care about saving activity and the impact it has on spending. Who cares about sales of goods? If anything this seems to slightly strengthen our argument since there is less evidence to prove whether spending is actually decreasing or not.

Flaw/ Descriptive Weakening

P1: Newspapers report only on scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic.

P2: Newspaper stories on small observational studies (generally more unreliable) are more frequent than ones with large randomized trials (generally more scientific results)

C: Therefore, a small observational study must be MORE LIKELY to have dramatic results than large randomized trials.

Gaps/ Assumptions: my attention is on the "more likely" in the conclusion. I don't think this has to be the case? what if large randomized trials are rarely done because of cost reasons? they can have the same likelihood of dramatic results its just that newspapers pick up on the small observational studies more because they are more plentiful. D is the correct answer choice because it picks up on that flaw.

Block NA Question type

Each domesticated large mammal species still in existence was domesticated a long time ago. Since then, humans have tried many times to domesticate large wild animals that seemed worth domesticating.

Therefore, most wild large mammal species TODAY would either be difficult to domesticate or not worth domesticating.

Gaps/ Assumptions: this argument makes an assumption that animals that were difficult to domesticate before are still difficult to domesticate. Technology could have changed that would make domesticating animal x easier.

A. Incorrect; this is a repeat of one of our premises.

B. Correct; if we negate this, we are saying that it is now easier to domesticate wild animals, which wrecks the argument. Then how could we say that wild animals today are difficult to domesticate?

C.Incorrect and irrelevant.

D. Incorrect, we do not need to link up the ideas of difficulty and worthwhileness... this is not a bridging NA

E. Irrelevant.

Necessary Assumption

Premise: Robbins cannot dismiss Stuart's art and Robins cannot praise it either.

Conclusion: Robin's cannot pass judgment on Stuart's art.

What I'm looking for: due to the heavy use of logic indicators, I am focusing on the logical structure of the argument. What is the conditional bridge that will connect the premises to the conclusion?

A: Correct answer choice. This AC reads-

PJ → D or P

Our premises give us D and P, conclusion is PJ.... Therefore our logical bridge is (if D and P → PJ)... Our AC uses demorgans law to take the contrapositive of this logical statement. It is both necessary and sufficient.

B: We do not need to link the concept of understanding with the concepts of dismissal/ praise. Incorrect.

C: This AC establishes the conditional (U → PJ). This does not bridge the conditional gap between P and C. Incorrect.

D: Incorrect- this AC does not link out premises to our conclusion.

E: Incorrect- premises is not linked to conclusion.

@ said:

You got any inspiration for a Tuesday ? ;)

Hahaha, I'll leave the Tuesday motivation in your capable hands @ !

@ said:

I will do "awesome lawyer things" ... best thing I've heard today.

Lmao a necessary reminder tbh

@ said:

Thank you, needed that!! @ you will make it and do amazing thing's one day too :smiley:

Lol yes thank you! a little perspective never hurt anyone

@ said:

"FiestaNextDoor" :smiley:

I'm not a PND fan, BUT I appreciate your wittiness. Hats off to you, sir.

Haha, it was either that or "fin de semana"

@ I hear you man. One of the deterrents when approaching these questions for me is that I usually have to write out the logic so I don't mix up ideas, which ends up taking too much time. I get that "seeing it in your head" comes from hours of practice with these questions. What did you do to practice with these?