@ I was wondering if you had considered trying to work at a firm to become a patent agent. Electrical engineers are in high demand and you might be able to land a gig doing some patent work in the near future - with the possibility of your firm paying tuition for you to attend law school. Just some food for thought.
I've been using OBS studio and my webcam to locally capture video and watch them using winamp. https://obsproject.com/
This way I use my hard disk to save the video instead of space on my phone...The webcam is just mounted to the top of my monitor and points almost straight downward to the page.
Thank you so much. You were spot on with in this regard. I had treated this statement way too broadly and see now that it was improper. Thanks again!
@ this is great. i'm going to try your method of blind review. sounds great!
I'm fortunate to live in the DC area, and I've studied on the weekends at the Library of Congress. Immaculate space. During the week I do most of my studying at home (or stay late in the office and complete a few problem sets/practice packets)
This is the Tuesday morning motivation I need. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for the great summary! Jealous you live in NYC and can kick it with JY. Seems like a really cool dude.
I dismissed answer choices A and C on the basis of "what is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels." It seems to me that if we take everything as true in the stimulus then the correct answer for this question doesn't really seem like a flaw. #help
Admin note: edited title
FWIW, here's how am I thinking of this problem.
I originally made this conditional chain EW→PC→UR→ID, but after looking at the stimulus again, realized that the although was acting more like a "but" in this situation. As we learn in our later lessons "but" and "and" are interchangeable, with the only difference being one of inflection. This led me to the correct conditional chain:
EW→PC
EW→UR→ID
/ID was given as an additional premise.
I saw the relationship immediately between /ID, /UR, and /EW and tested for these issues (leading me to A). When I saw A, I immediately knew that this question was likely the correct answer. It passed the smell test. It negated a stated premise in our stimulus.
I became confused when I was reviewing because answer choice D is presented in the same form as answer choice A, both negated our sufficient condition and led to our necessary condition. At this point, I became unsure of my reasoning and could not convince myself that I was 100% correct with answer choice A - even though I knew I had made the correct inferences with /ID.
After listening to JY's explanation, things didn't click immediately. I was lost with his explanation of the logical negation of A→B (which I went back summarily to review). I remember now that this conditional when logically negated could mean (1) A and /B or (2) some A do not B, which is not what answer choice D says. These two translations would be another MBF answer choice.
Another way of looking at answer choice D seems to be like that of an In/Out game. What can we conclude if we know that ID is out (/ID)? Well, as we said before /UR and /EW (i.e. both out). What can we conclude about PC? Nothing. Sufficient was failed, therefore rule is irrelevant. PC could be in or out, and we have no idea of the relationship between EW and PC with the /ID premise. Does this thinking seem reasonable?
Would it be fair to say that ans choice D would be a required assumption?
#help Could someone clarify how we know BS→GF (as stated by JY)? I've listened to his explanation a few times, and I just can't wrap my head around it. I've tried to articulate why I can't understand the explanation below. It would be useful if someone were to "check my work" below to make sure I haven't made errors in reasoning that are leaving me unable to understand JY's explanation? Thanks!
I can see how, as a pedagogical device, classifying Cynthia's conclusion as basic science (BS)→GF is helpful because it makes answer choice E more apparently wrong in terms of outcome, but I can't see how we can understand BS→GF from the stimulus we are given. That is, I can see how BS→GF is equally as likely as GF→BS.
Is Cynthia saying corporations amply funding technologies makes government funding of technologies unnecessary (and thus, shouldn't fund technologies; GF→BS) or is Cynthia providing an additional reason for increased investment in basic science (and thus, should continue to fund technologies while simultaneously funding basic research; BS→GF)? I think this point is relevant because it helps me understand whether or not Cynthia's conclusion is one of sufficiency or necessity.
Also, thinking less about Cynthia's statement in isolation and the stimulus as a whole, it appears to me that they disagree about the conditions that are necessary for government funding. Luis is saying if funded by government, then the project is expected to yield practical applications. Cynthia, on the other hand, could be saying if funded by the government, then the project is a basic scientific research project that furthers theoretical knowledge.
In either case, (E) still seems correct. Whether GF→BS is Cynthia's conclusion, it still appears to remain true that there need not be an expected benefit to performing basic research to receive government funding. It may be an outcome of Cynthia's conclusion (i.e. the result is GF→BS→E) but it is not always the case.
Congrats! Just the motivation everyone needs!
@ Yeah, from what I hear it is imperative to get acclimated to the 70s before sitting for the exam.
Seconded. Definitely try to take the more recent tests. The other thing I would add is to try not to waste the newer tests until you feel like you're comfortable with what you've learned in the curriculum. It's been my experience (limited to be honest) that while I think I'm comfortable with the curriculum, questions change my approach and thinking. I'd give it a bit of time before diving right into the newer tests. Good luck!
I think Rachel hit it on the head, but I'll add this as well. You should commit to memory Group I and Group 2 logical indicators, which are discussed in the curriculum. These logical indicators will help you identify whether they're asking you for the sufficient (Group I) or the necessary (Group 2) assumption.
Absolutely the best program there is!!
Generally speaking, a BS/BA is insufficient for Patent Prosecution at a law firm. If you're talking about Patent Litigation, you may get by.
The market is saturated with PhDs, many of whom have post-doctoral experience. The fact that you CAN get a position with a BA/BS does not, practically speaking, mean you will get a position.
Engineering disciplines, like EE, are vastly different as the patent life cycle is much shorter which in turn leads to more continual filings.
wow, this is a total surprise!! this is such a wonderful community.
@ Given your undergraduate loans, it might be a good idea to work (maybe at an IP firm?) before you head to law school. My thinking is this, you want to go to the best possible law school you can if your goal is big law, and you may want to figure out you actually enjoy patent work before taking on more debt only to find out you hate the work. Patent prosecution can be brutal and is much akin to factory work. You put the pieces of the application together, send it off, and defend your product (which may or may not be novel).
The nature of your work is definitely firm dependent but EE is massively hiring because there is much more work than people to file and write applications. Thus, any IP related work at this stage in your career will heavily focus on Patent Prosecution. While some firms may let you assist in litigation or other legal matters, I wouldn't expect this to be the norm in EE.
My opinion is that you should work to get into a firm that has tuition assistance and then decide from there how you'd like to proceed. If you'd like to continue working for the firm and prosecuting inventions while having them pay for school, then great. If you think you'd be hard pressed for time and would like to focus solely on your studies, then quit your firm job and enjoy your time in law school. You may find out you actually hate IP and, as a result are more receptive to other subjects in law school, say tax, corporate, or whatever.
Good luck!