I can't print any of the prep tests or problem sets. Always prepares, then gives me a "print failed: print job cancelled" error.
Anyone know how to fix this?
I'm using a Chromebook, would it be better to use my parent's (crappy) Windows laptop to print?
@ @
"If I go to the market and go to the mall, then I will reward myself with ice cream."
"Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream."
"I went to the market".
My take on this would be that (in light of the LSAT) you have to take all the premises to be true. Since "go to the mall" is the only thing that's up in the air (Market + /RwIC), in order to not contradict the stimulus you would have to interpret "even if I go to the mall" as NOT going to the mall.
Unless an answer choice mentioned the possibility of a contradiction occurring.
So saying that "I will not go to the market" is not a necessary inference, correct?
I would agree, as others have said "even if" isn't really saying anything. "Even if" is just a hypothetical that strengthens the original statement.
Logically I would represent the "Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream.", as: /RwIC + Mall* (* meaning true or false)
@ said:
@ @ Also a Canadian here, but have you guys considered McGill at all?
Great school, but I don't think I can afford to live in a big city (but can commute to Toronto from home)
The bilingual element is enticing though....
@ said:
@
Thanks for the info. That is good to know. Maybe I'll look more into Queens as well.
Good luck with study and applications!
Thanks, you too!
@
From my research Queens has the best value law education, U of T costs 100% more and Osgoode 50% more. Obviously U of T is the best, but the other two are very similar in prestige and (done some research but need to do more) have equal hiring for Toronto big law.
For me: if I'm going to Toronto, I'm going to U of T (and unfortunately means living at home and taking a 45min train daily). But if I want a most cost effective, more fun (Queens is awesome from visiting), likely higher class rating, and a place where it is easier to study and be involved I'm going to Queens.
Still a lot more to process though before I make my decision (at least I hope...)
I'm in a similar position (as a Canadian). Unlike you though I'm following the money in Canada so U of T is my best option (either that or Queen's, depending on many factors).
I'd look at the various alumni for each school, to see what people have actually done with their degrees. Maybe specifically what Canadians have done with a top US law degree (as you seem to want to come back to Canada).
Or even maybe contact Yale law (or attend a information session) and see what exactly separates their experience/degree from other top schools.
Also the money is not necessarily Yale being double U of T. Cost of living, scholarships offered, financial aid given, government versus bank loans all factor in (and will for my U of T vs. Queen's decision
"otherwise identical genes" in the stim tripped me up, so I'm going to write out my thoughts
Eliminate C and E, they both suck
A is too broad, arguments would still work if scientists just understood genes and ultraviolet vision in flies
B) So here I thought I could eliminate this because I thought the clones being exactly the same except for the single gene took care of this. At this point I guess I forgot what the conclusion was exactly, and this was a needed bridge from premises to conclusion. If some other gene was required for ultraviolet vision in flies, then the scientists could not conclude a lack of ultraviolet vision from a random fly of that species was missing their study's selected gene
D) Fails negation test, a minor effect could still be there (with the argument still working)
E is such a shitty MBT answer
"no one disagrees" is used as a guarantee of truth
Also fails to consider that the baseline for the two subsets of children may not be equal, for example: the children who received the traditional practice were predisposed to have more confidence, the parents who gave their children this treatment also happened to have children with more confidence or (on average) the "traditional parents" tended to raise their children with a lifestyle that provided more confidence before hand.
Basically it could be true that the "traditional kids" (on average) had say confidence:100 before hand, while the kids who didn't receive the practice were (for whatever reason [on average]) at like 50 (and stayed at 50 to adulthood). The treatment then caused the first group the damage and the consequential loss that made them drop, to 50. Here the psychologist's beliefs and the next premise are both true, while E is false.
"On average" simply makes a statement about the current situation being the similar between the two groups, nothing to indicate it guarantees the same or a similar makeup from the beginning.
I get why it's a better answer than the one I went with (B). The assumption it needs is a little smaller.
It just seems to use a similar assumption, that these large groups will be consistent with typical data for large groups of people. As I mentioned E won't deviate with the baseline, while B won't deviate and have people on either end of the spectrum. To me it doesn't seem to be much of a reach to conclude that when looking at a spectrum of confidence, if a large group of people are average relative to the rest of the population, then some of those people will be near the ends of the spectrum.
Fuck this question, I hate it
@
@
Okay good to know, works from my parent's laptop so I'll just use that going forward
@
I am able to print the PDFs fine