Kevin is genuinely the best at breaking down passages and making us understand them, it looks so easy to me now

If Kevin gets me a 170 my first paycheck is going to be split between him and J.Y.

Honestly, I'm going to miss LR; even if I tore my hair out, it was definitely a part of me for the past month

I love you shallow dip this was so easy for me!!

Shallow Dip is so clutch omg

@syed216893 I do both though (decade late btw)

@ChristianSandlin, so you're agreeing that revoking a degree if someone cheated is good, but you still equate a degree to nothing different from a yacht. You said that a degree is "obviously not something you just buy," but then double down and contradict yourself by saying it is no different from a yacht, which is a simple possessive item. You just bought a yacht, so either you're confusing a tangible possession with a credential, which requires grades, integrity, and money, or you are trying to hold your initial argument that a degree is just something you pay for while contradicting it by adding emotional substance to it. Usually on a degree (I'm talking about law, but this is common on other degrees), there is a line saying that the person attaining this credential is "awarded all the rights and privileges pertaining to this degree." "What does that tell us? It says that a degree isn't just "I studied here and I'm done." It says that you are now entrusted by this institution; they are a REFERENCE to the fact that you can practice in this field, and they are endorsing you. Obviously they aren't the direct organization to give you the green light to directly practice. But the degree gives you rights and privileges pertaining to the field. Meaning that when you commit malpractice, you have violated and abused the rights and privileges that COME with your degree. NOT entirely with your license. That's something you have to distinguish between.

An education does not just resemble a piece of paper. You are limiting it to simply monetary worth. As I have mentioned, it is a trust. Suppose 2 applicants apply to a law school. One of them is a convicted criminal who has been recently charged with fraud and whatnot. Another is just a normal student who meets admission standards. Who would the law school take? You might argue for both of them (which I find somewhat absurd), but law schools also rank applicants based on character and whether they are a good fit. Why would law schools care about that if all a degree is is a purchasable asset with no other factors influencing its importance? Because they have to choose who they think can make a better impact in the world. That is the point I am making: it's not just the money you put into an education that determines value.

One more caveat, and that is if you're okay with removing a professional license, you once again contradict your core philosophy; your main argument is that since you paid for something, it cannot be revoked. Revoking a professional license costs a lot of money as well. The BAR exam is expensive. The LSAT, which we're studying for, is also expensive (not relevant but an example). You are now trying to be selective between education and a professional license, but both require money, and you completely disregard that. Your claim that paying for something makes it a possessive asset must logically apply in terms of a professional license in your case. So which is it?

NA questions require the most brainpower to rewire How you attack the questions. But once you get it, even the L5 questions are easy and just require you to look through every option carefully.

@ChristianSandlin, you're conflating the idea of “purchasing” a possessive item compared to something that an institution bestows upon you. You cannot simply purchase a degree. If we did that, then society would be screwed. A degree is given to those who meet or exceed the criteria for admission to study a specific discipline.

Moreover, if the pharmacist's degree was not revoked by the university, imagine how bad that looks. By not revoking his certification, the institution that gave the degree to this person, who is now a convicted criminal, is enabling this individual to hold a certification in a field in which they clearly aren't capable of acting responsibly.

Imagine how bad that looks. And not only looks, but the institution that is given the power to give the opportunity for someone to become a future pharmacist is disgracing the industry of pharmacy by letting convicted criminals who misuse their degree do whatever they want and continue their abuse of power. A degree is a trust, not a permanent possession.

Imagine your doctor is found to have paid off instructors and examiners to skip his exams and assignments and was gifted his degree and medical license. That's the concept you're trying to argue for. You are confusing a degree as a physical thing, so since you paid for it, it doesn't matter how or what you do with it as long as you paid for it. Monetary value does NOT hold any value in degrees. The doctor who paid people to cheat his way into a degree simply got it because he paid for it. Nothing else. You disregard the effort and time and the trust an institution gives towards someone and slap a lousy generalization on a degree just from the cost.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Your example is too superficial to be associated with how a degree is given, chosen, and worked towards. I turn back the mic to you.

FINALLY. 4/5 BUT 5/5 ON BR. 2 L5 questions, and both were right on my first try. The question I missed was so obvious now I feel stupid even getting it wrong. It's finally clicking for me; I've been so frustrated lately with these questions but now it's looking better for me.

@ChristianSandlin so if a pharmacist decides to run an illegal business selling pharmaceuticals and is caught, they should still keep their degree because they paid for it? Looks like a justification of crime and doesn’t really enable the justice system to put their foot down on someone’s abuse of their discipline. Once they’re out of jail then they can just go back into pharmaceuticals and continue their illegal business because they’re still accredited.

Not sure how keeping it is really going to do any good to society. Removing these peoples degrees allows for the people in our society who hold high positions to be ethical. Otherwise the doctor you visit might be committing fraud and you wouldn’t even know it until you’re in a courtroom!

Too easy to be a level 5 difficulty question. Got E 11 seconds under time.

B just restates what the author says in the last sentence; it doesn't really add anything extra or is the main focus of the argument.

E explains the whole reason why the author is suggesting this entire thing.

The whole point of adjusting speed limits to reflect average speeds is because it reduced accidents. That's why we are discussing the numeric avg speed and why it should be implemented in other similarly designed roads. It's to reduce accidents.

@ChristianSandlin They paid 6 figures to study the discipline and practice in the field, which is a privilege. The institution admits them because they think their academic profile befits someone who is able to contribute to scientific research/developments.

Someone who takes advantage of that degree and falsifies data, which does not represent what their education's purpose was for, can't really argue that they should get their money back.

It's their own consequence to take advantage of their educational standing. Someone else could have taken their spot and done more good in their position. That scientist who committed fraud could have seriously affected someone else's life and might have wasted thousands, maybe even millions, in research funding, which is more than what they paid for their degree.

You reap what you sow; you shouldn't be entitled to get a refund for taking advantage of a university and the opportunity you were given.

REMEMBER:

A -m-> B -m-> C

DOES NOT MEAN

B <-s-> C

Instead, it yields no valid conclusion. There is no relationship between all 3. They can only be broken in the 2 independent forms, like A -m-> B and B -m-> C.

5/5, 5/5 BR, all under time!

Looks like it's the Hardy-Weinberg principle all over again

@EDobbs24 if you focused more on the actual lessons than J.Y cursing which doesn't impact the lesson, you would probably get a higher score than a 157 lmao

@Brie97 Basically, causal reasoning questions usually have a stimulus that asks for an option that would either weaken or strengthen the argument that is provided to us.

Strengthening the argument would mean that we REJECT an alternative hypothesis, as that would further affirm that the hypothesis (aka conclusion) in our given argument is the true one and not anything else.

Weakening the argument would mean accepting that an alternative hypothesis could be true, which may conflict with the conclusion/hypothesis initially given to us by the argument.

TL;DR:

Overall, an alternative hypothesis (explanation for the phenomenon):

1. can either weaken an argument if taken to be true

2. or strengthen an argument if it is rejected

11/12

@GDatria715 there's only 1 right answer; the other ones are just traps to make it seem like they're right by flipping the logic structure

i got 2/5 first, but i got 5/5 later with a level 5 and 4 difficulty. don't put yourself down, you can do it!

@All_or_Nothing i think you meant to use the quantifier "few" which has the dual meaning of "some are and most are not" rather than using some.

easiest 7sage lesson btw

5/5, too easy

5/5