Hi!

I'm a reapplicant and I'm thinking of sending in my apps this month.

I was just wondering if I would have to rewrite my why x essays as a reapplicant.

I've wrote a completely new PS but I'm not sure if I can write a new why essay without sounding too forced and generic.

Any opinion would be appreciated.

Thank you!

Hi!

I was working on LR and had a little problem with the expression "all that is required to do A is B"

So if we were to diagram this in conditional language, would B be sufficient for A or would it be necessary?

Maybe it's biconditional? I'm not sure.

It's just messing with my head and any help would be greatly appreciated! :)

Hi! I have a question about flaw and weaken type Qs on LR.

So, if i remember correctly, JY said in one of his lessons that the arguments for flaw type questions might have several unstated assumptions but it doesn't necessarily mean that all those assumptions could be classified as flaws.

Besides the common flaws that he listed for us in his lesson (ex. red herring fallacy, opinion vs fact etc.), how can we decide which assumptions count or does not count as flaws?

This also lead me to question the difference between weakening and flaw type Qs: could the assumptions that do not count as flaws in flaw questions be used to weaken such arguments should they be used in weaken type questions?

I know this all sounds kind of confusing but any opinion on this would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!

I'm an international application and i'm working on my why x essays.

Would it be an disadvantage for me if i write about wanting to work for the government of my country (Korea) after i graduate their law school?

I'm thinking of working for the ministry of foreign affairs after graduating.

Thanks!

So I've been studying for lsat for some time now and i always had this question i couldn't sort out in my head.

For certain describe the flaw questions on LR, we see a lot of conditional reversal flaws.

For example, "A --> B. Therefore, B -->A."

When choosing the right answer for this kind of flaw, we usually get obvious answer choices.

But we sometimes get "fails to consider" kind of answers like "fails to consider that there could be other conditions necessary for A other than B".

My question is, for the kind of flaw that i mentioned above (A-->B so B-->A), could we also say that "author takes for granted that only B is required for A"?

Thanks.