Discussions

ddmondero382

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

General · Reading Comprehension Boot Camp: PT 79 May 1st (9pm Eastern)

ddmondero382

Tuesday, Apr 28 2020

Thanks Michael. Will there be a recording available to watch for those who won't be able to attend live?

Admissions · Writing a "Why X" for Notre Dame

ddmondero382

Monday, Oct 26 2020

@ said:

Are those truly the reasons you want to go to NDLS? If so, then absolutely do not re-write it.

You need to be yourself and express yourself to the admissions committee whether or not it might be "too controversial."* Look at it this way -- if why you want to go to a law school is too controversial* for them, then maybe they aren't the right law school for you.

*within reason. Obviously don't be overly controversial for no reason. That doesn't sound like the case here: maybe the subjects are controversial to some but they clearly relate directly to the school.

Thanks. So I personally don't believe I wrote anything too "controversial." The real meat of my essay was my interest in their religious liberty clinic. My professor expressed concern that perhaps some of the faculty in the admissions committee might have certain negative connotations associated with religious liberty and thus have a reason to not admit me.

Admissions

•

Monday, Oct 26 2020

ddmondero382

Writing a "Why X" for Notre Dame

I wrote my "Why NDLS" which touches on issues such as catholicism, Amy Coney Barrett, and Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Clinic. My professor read my "why x" and advised me to rewrite it as all three of those issues might be too controversial, even for Notre Dame. Does anyone have any thoughts on what I should do? Should I re-write my "why x" and refrain from talking about these subjects or should I not write a "why x" at all. For context, I am applying early decision.

Thanks.

PrepTests ·

PT105.S2.Q1

ddmondero382

Tuesday, May 21 2019

LSAT · Question regarding "all"

ddmondero382

Monday, Apr 20 2020

@ said:

I would think you shouldn't assume at all...we don't know for sure if ALL cats are happy, if we knew that then we could say most and some as well. I would review the some and most relationship lesson in the CC again for clarification!

I'm not sure I agree with you there. In the absence of a quantifier, a statement like "cats are happy" is universal by itself, so it necessarily assumes "all" as the absent quantifier. If we illustrate this as a syllogism, we might be able to intuit that "cats are happy" is indeed a universal statement.

Socrates is a cat

Cats are happy

Therefore, Socrates is happy

The term "cats" by itself is universal as it speaks to the category of cats given that it is absent of an explicit quantifier. Thus, the conclusion logically follows as the particular cat (Socrates) is included in the category of cats in premise 2.

That said, it is important to note - as you've noted - that the quantifiers "some" and "most" can be included in "all" as well.

LSAT · Question regarding "all"

ddmondero382

Monday, Apr 20 2020

It depends. If "A cat is a happy animal" is a full statement by itself, the statement would be universal. If instead, the sentence is "There is a cat who is a happy animal", this wouldn't necessarily be universal since "there is" denotes a particular cat.

LSAT · Question regarding "all"

ddmondero382

Monday, Apr 20 2020

Yes, in the absence of a quantifier, it is safe to assume that "cats are happy" is a universal statement. However, if the statement is "the cats are happy," it wouldn't necessarily apply universally for all cats as the word "the" may denote a particular set of cats.

LSAT · PT15.S3.Q18

ddmondero382

Tuesday, Aug 18 2020

The argument concludes that all genetic mutations are random. This is a bad conclusion because the only evidence it shows are experiments with bacteria who exhibit random mutations. The argument only provides us with information to conclude that perhaps genetic mutations in bacteria are random, not that every single genetic mutation for every organism is random.

In order for this conclusion to make sense, we have to somehow find a premise that proves genetic mutations in bacteria are universally representative for all genetic mutations. And that is exactly what A does. If it's true that "either all genetic mutations are random or none are random", then just one instance of an organism exhibiting a random genetic mutation can prove the conclusion that all genetic mutation is random.

LSAT · PT4.S1.Q19 Salt microwave

ddmondero382

Friday, Jul 17 2020

It's subtle, but answer choice C says "the addition of salt to food that has been cooked or reheated in a microwave..." Ordinarily, the danger of food poisoning would increase if salt was added before it was heated, but C subtly says that salt was added after it was heated, which is the crucial distinction that makes C wrong.

LSAT · PT8.S4.Q16- Consumer advocate: under the current

ddmondero382

Tuesday, Aug 11 2020

You're exactly right about E. E would strengthen the manufacturer's argument if it didn't contain that unless condition. Since it's not stated in the passage, there exists the possibility that the manufacturers actually are reaping large benefits from deception, which would weaken the argument. Leaving that possibility open makes E a weaker answer choice than C.

As for C, recall the manufacturer's conclusion. The manufacturer argues that it is not deceptive to use words differently from their common usage. This actually doesn't exclude the idea that the manufacturers themselves can't be deceptive, but merely that it isn't deceptive to use words differently from their common usage.

Moreover, C doesn't seem to necessarily imply that manufacturers are deceptive. Perhaps the word "exploit" might be attached with certain connotations that reminds us of deception or malpractice. But what C literally means is that insofar as it's legal, people should be allowed to make full use of the advantages of the ambiguity and vagueness in language.

PrepTests ·

PT124.S1.Q6

ddmondero382

Wednesday, Jul 01 2020

I read answer choice A as saying "musical manager" instead of "musical arranger" and so skipped this answer choice. Funnily enough, JY also misreads it as "manager" and still chose A.

PrepTests ·

PT109.S3.Q14

ddmondero382

Saturday, Jun 01 2019

Upon review there is another reason D is wrong. Namely because "demonstrate that there is no relation" is a certainty answer choice. It leaves no room for possibility and is thus harder to prove. There is not enough evidence for this, and the statistic does not 100% demonstratively show that there is no relation.

This is why E is correct. The word "suggest" implies probability and we can see that the statistic can probably suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence. E is a probability answer and probability answers are much easier to prove than certainty answers.