Here's my two cents.
- it's been said that people should just accept themselves. don't be dissatisfied with yourself!
- if you want to be genuinely happy --> pursue personal excellence and undergo change
------------------------------
- if we want people to be genuinely happy --> tell people to accept themselves is a bad principle.
A) this is a bit backwards. willing to change --> probably find genuine happiness.
- but our premise is "genuine happiness --> willing to change"
B) this is telling us that if you really want people to be happy, what do you need to do according to the premise? you need to pursue personal excellence and willing to undergo personal change. So it must be true that people who just accept themselves and are not dissatisfied with themselves ARE NOT going to pursue personal excellence and undergo change.
C) not a MBT. what do we know about how personal excellence can be acquired?
D) not a MBT. What do we know about whether people are justified in feeling content or not?
E) genuine happiness --> based on something painful to obtain
- we have no idea if genuine happiness is based on something painful or not. all we know is that genuine happiness depends on pursuing excellence and undergoing personal change.
very happy for you!
So using your example, we have R --m--> S --> /L. The valid conclusion we can draw is most R are /L. Let's say we have 3 R's. Most R's are S means at least 2 of my R's are S's (more than half). I then know that all of S's are /L. So if I see S then I need to see /L. So is it true that there's some overlap between R and /L? Yes, that has to be true. It's also true that most R are /L. That's why the valid conclusion we can draw is most R's are /L.
R
R S /L
R S /L
S /L
S /L
I think for your scope question, those are CBT, and not MBT. I have the drawing of 5 R's and 6 S's. If I see S then I must see /L. but I can have a lot more /L without S. Sure, there can be runners who like to run. But is that MBT according to our sets? No, it's not because there is no guarantee that these two sets overlap. It is a CBT. There is no guarantee that we will get an overlap between R and L, but we are guaranteed an overlap between R and /L.
R
R
R S /L
R S /L
R S /L
S /L
S /L
S /L
/L
I hope this helps a bit!
have you completed the core curriculum ? If you have not, I would encourage you to do that first before you take any PTs. PTs are a measure of progress, but blindly taking PTs without having your foundations down may be a waste of PT. Just my two cents. But please don't feel discouraged! I know it is frustrating, but you will get better! Hang in there!
Stimulus breakdown:
the intended function of news is to give us info so we can act on it
but in a consumer society, news is primarily entertaining
so news cannot serve its intended function
gap: did we ever say being entertaining means we can no longer act on it? no, so this is the hole in the argument.
As to why C is wrong, ask yourself do we talk about "important" function? We talk about "intended" function but not important function. Also, let's negate C -- news has 2 important functions. Does that destroy our argument that news cannot serve its intended function? no, it doesn't wreck the argument at all. On the other hand, let's negate D -- news that primarily entertains does give us info on which to act. Well, that destroys our argument! If news that's primarily entertaining can still give us info on which to act, which is the intended function of news, our conclusion doesn't hold anymore.
Hope this helps!
Congrats!!! I am so happy for you!!! This post put a smile on my face!
I am so happy for you!!!! Congratulations!!!
hi there!
so the rule for A is "the action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be adopted. Exception = the building is believed to pose a threat to neighbourhood safety". Do we fall inside the exception or outside the exception? We are inside the exception because we are told that these houses pose a threat to the safety of our neighbourhood. When we are inside the exception, the rule goes away, so this rule doesn't apply to us anymore. This means it is not helpful to establish whether the majority was right or if we should adopt what opponents advocated.
For B, let's break it down! One of the proposals would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach. The two proposals are 1) take down the houses / demolition and 2) don't take down the houses / rehabilitation. So what B is saying is that if we go with Proposal 1 (take the houses down) then we can't try Proposal 2 (rehabilitation). And if the first proposal doesn't go well (i.e. it proves unsatisfactory) then we should do the one that doesn't prevent the other possibility from happening. In other words, B is saying "go with the proposal that doesn't prevent us from trying the other proposal". So this would help us to determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents should have been adopted.
I hope this helps!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I diagram "always apart" as bi-conditional. I.e. J (--) /K. What you have above /J --> K is not always apart. It means either J is in, or K is in, or both J and K can be in. Similarly, J --> /K means either J or K must be out, or both can be out. Always apart is a little different because it means you can never see JK in or out together. A forever apart rule will read something like "either J is in or K is in, but not both". This means I must see one of J or K in, but they are forever apart because I cannot see both in. I hope this helps a bit!
honestly with all the chaos Prometric's has caused, I would expect both Prometrics and LSAC to do better by now. I'm sorry to hear that this is happening to you :(
the argument is like this:
home and /house
house and /home
not (house ---> home)
so the conclusion that being at home is not necessary for being in one's own house is supported by the premise that we can be in our house without being at home. The first premise (home and /house) isn't used to support our conclusion, which is why C is correct because it doesn't contradict anything, nor does it support our conclusion. it's existence is just compatible with our argument. I hope this helps!
basically it's saying there is a difference between manners and morals. the difference is that manners ---> social whereas morals doesn't have to be social. An example of this would be you kicked a rock. That's an immoral action but that's not necessarily a social act because no one else is involved. But for you to have manners, you must be interacting with others (i.e. social). So rules of etiquette, which is a form of manners, don't apply when you are alone. This basically just means that you don't need to have etiquette when you are alone.
AC A is correct because being immoral/moral doesn't necessarily mean you are social. if you aren't social (i.e. you are alone) when you are being immoral then how can you cause anyone harm?
I hope this helps!
Did you link your account to LawHub ?
E is the correct AC, not C.
so the way you would diagram this is
LP (--some--) PS
LP (--some--) SO.
LP --> Influence
So the inferences we can draw are SO (--some--) Influence and PS (--some--) Influence. AC A gives us SO (--some--) Influence.
Think of this as an example. If it's an apple then it's a fruit. We can have 4 situations.
when the sufficient condition is triggered (i.e. you have an apple), what else do you know? You know you also have a fruit. This must be true because the rule is triggered
when the sufficient condition fails (i.e. you don't have an apple)
what do you know? nothing. You could have a fruit or you don't have a fruit. The rule goes away
when the necessary condition is satisfied (i.e. you have a fruit)
what else do you know? nothing. you can have an apple or you don't have an apple. the rule also goes away
when the necessary condition fails (i.e. you don't have a fruit)
what else do you know? you must not have an apple. If you don't have a fruit, it must be true that you don't have an apple.
If you need more help on this, I think you can look into lessons in the CC under Conditional and Set Logic Theory. I hope this helps!
I was between D and E, and ended up choosing E. I can see why D is correct, but why is E wrong? I thought "directive" used in this context could be used as compelling the society to unite whereas "guiding" seemed a bit weak in comparison.
Can someone elaborate on this please?
because the canceled effect doesn't apply to these residents. These residents have normal blood sugar, not very low blood sugar levels. D is correct because we are told that these residents have this blood protein that prevents vascular blockage, and vascular blockage causes cardiovascular disease. So this protein is the reason why they can have high cholesterol levels yet no cardiovascular disease.
Basically the stimulus points out all the advantages / benefits of picking Mount Shalko as the site for the proposed observatory. One of the premises used to support the astronomer's argument is that the observatory would not be a threat to endemic life forms because it would preclude recreational use of the mountain, which means that 200,000 recreational users wouldn't be able to visit the mountain. The stimulus tells us recreational use poses a threat to the wildlife. So the stimulus seems to give us another reason why precluding recreational use is great - wildlife wouldn't be threatened. But C tells us that the complex that's designed to be used could be just as disruptive to the ecology as the current level of recreational use. This weakens the support because if the complex could disrupt the life forms just as much as the recreational use, then it doesn't seem like a benefit / advantage anymore. I hope this helps!
I think B contradicts the passage because it's explicitly stated that these aboriginal people continued to raise issues concerning their rights (lines 17-18). B should be edited to say "the burden placed on provincial courts of interpreting constitutional language in Canada has made it difficult for aboriginal peoples to gain full ownership of land". But even if we do edit it to this version, B still isn't complete because the ownership of land is just an idea in the last paragraph. The second paragraph is about recognizing the legal meaning of "indigenous". So B isn't capturing the broader idea of aboriginal rights.
so the two ideas here are (1) no dog can go and (2) owners leave. The symbols are "/DG" and "OL". Following group 3 translation, we identify the indicator as "until" which is negate sufficient. So this translates to "DG ---> OL". Note that the DG idea is negated already so when you negate a negative, it becomes a positive.
If we choose to use the group 4 indicator "No", the two ideas are (1) dog can go and (2) until owners leave. The symbols are "DG" and "/OL". Following the group 4 translation, we get "DG --> OL"
The translation is the same whether you choose group 3 or group 4. Just remember to use the other logical indicator as a negation. I hope this helps!
I always see @matthewcsorrels859's helpful comments on the forum. Well deserved and congrats to all the winners!
I am so happy for you!!! I am currently at the point where I am doubting myself if I can really do it. Your words are encouraging and I wish you the best with your law school journey!
it's not arbitrary.
there is no conditional indicator in the sentence "It is wrong to intentionally misrepresent another person’s beliefs", but you need to make it make sense to you. There is actually conditional language involved in that sentence. You need to ask yourself which one makes more sense.
wrong → intentionally misrepresent (if it's wrong then intentionally misrepresent another person's beliefs)
or
intentionally misrepresent → wrong (if it's intentionally misrepresent another person's beliefs then it's wrong)
the latter makes more sense and matches the idea expressed in the sentence.
you're an inspiration, congratulations!!!