- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Shouldn't the left part of the likely arrow be a disjunction of negated literals rather than a conjunction of negated literals?
Refutation by Parallel Reasoning:
Couch Potato: Some of my opponents have argued that it is necessary for me to have a low body-fat ratio in order to live a healthier and more fulfilling life. My opponents should instead argue on the main cause of my not wanting to go to the gym: I'm lazy and unmotivated. Thus, it is unwarranted for me to have a low body-fat ratio in order to live a healthier and more fulfilling life.
In both arguments, a certain ends is proposed by some opponents; the means to obtain those ends is presumed by the author to be only such and such, and the author further assumes that the opponents in question are also holding the same presumption that the means to achieve said ends is only such and such. There could be other means to obtain those ends, for instance, low body fat can be achieved without having to go to the gym at all, one can restrict their calorie intake or do intermittent fasting (abs are made in the kitchen), and still successfully achieve a low body-fat percentage.
Most strongly supported questions ask for an inference, for which the premises act as support. The strength of support tends towards validity, without actually being valid.
Answer choice D is strongly supported, however, the support, along with answer choice D, does not make the argument valid. Answer choice D relies on the assumption that denying children the responsibility to vote amounts to denying children the right to vote.
This passage was difficult to understand, even on the second reading for BR; does one just get better at understanding hard passages with more practice?
D is wrong because its pith regards a tacit assumption about private neighborhoods, which presumably are built with private funds. However, the pith of the stimulus regards public neighborhoods, and public funds.
D is subtly out of scope, and thus does not describe why the premises fail to support the conclusion.
How do we know that personal relationships additionally require trust?
I got trapped. Is answer choice (B) wrong because the statement: "Analysts would stand to gain if this was true" is not the pith of the columnist's argument?
I chose (E); but considering (A), it is not factually incorrect. Is it wrong because (A) implies the absence of the main conclusion?
You better be watching Super J.Y. Jiren is a badass. He's so zen he'd get a 180 on the LSAT; and he'd be writing it while he was fighting Goku.
My > @kimberleemcmillin935 said:
Wait, what's this post trying to get at? It sounds like you're trying to convince us that you're not alt-right or liberal (although those are by no means equatable). Unless you wrote this as your PS, why would the admissions committee know this about you or care about this thought process? If you're concerned about the effect of your politics, just don't write about them.
Good point.
Hi,
How does one's political views affect one's chances at admission, especially to elite schools which tend to lean left? I wouldn't say I'm a liberal, by today's standards of what constitutes left at least; if one defines "liberal" as "one who values liberty", then yes I am a liberal. However, I try to understand both sides of the political spectrum without being wedded to any particular ideology. By no means am I what many have called the "alt-right", however, there are some views that they hold that I am sympathetic towards; in particular, I believe that it is necessity to guard the freedom of speech. There are, of course, reasons for me to be sympathetic towards this idea: language evolves. To legislate on what constitutes "appropriate" speech is to attempt to directly and consciously control the evolution of language. If I were to reject this notion, I would have to reject the liberal value of liberty, which is distinct from license. Thus, to remain a liberal, it seems that I must defend, what is now considered to be, a conservative ideal.
In short, I am a centrist. But it seems that being a centrist, especially in this politically charged climate, would hurt my chances. Am I correct in being concerned?
Why is E not a slight strengthener? It seems relevant. One could argue that the situation presented in choice E is not necessarily a representative sample of the leaf preferences of all other insects that eat leaves, but on what basis would one have to make this assumption? One would have to assume more than is warranted in the argument to make say that the situation is unrepresentative in order to eliminate answer choice E.
If I were taking this test, under timed conditions, I wouldn't be able to eliminate for this reason. Am I explaining it to myself correctly? Or is there another, perhaps stronger, reason to eliminate E?
For answer choice E, one could also say that it is incorrect for saying that the social system would be undermined rather than the values of that social system.