Do we need to do anything with ProctorU after taking the LSAT flex? The "log me in rescue" app is still in my downloads - would I be able to safely remove it? And we're no longer screen-sharing / sharing our webcam video with ProctorU once we close the chat window right? (We have control over our computers again? right after closing the chat window) haha
Wishing everyone who took the test recently the best!
@ @ PT 65 sounds good to me!
I hate the assumption in (B)!
(B) assumes if (hide out more during day), then (more active at night). That assumption took me like a minute to be okay with during timed conditions, and only after I eliminated the others confidently. I just felt like that was such a big assumption, and I was saved by the wrong ACs.
As @TheDeterminedC said below, one of the things I'm seeing more is that increases in something (more active at night) are being pointed to moreso through a decrease in something (less active during day).
I know there are some methods, such as reading the conclusion first, and then eliminating easy WACs - but for mid-difficult parallel questions, JY has said this is a shortcut/crutch that’s not always reliable, which is true.
So what’s the advanced/high level way to go about mid-difficult parallel questions? Do high 170 scorers read all the ACs, but just process it more quickly?
Scoring in the low 170s, but my strategy for parallel q's is never consistent and I think I've gotten lucky on too many occasions with parallel q's
For Parallel Flaw/ Parallel MOR questions, do you move on after reading (what you believe) to be the CAC? Doing this has saved me massive time in some instances, but in others I miss a slight missing parallel that would have been obvious had I read another AC (the one I chose was missing a “can”, etc). I often make a local decision that changes for every parallel question, but I want to be more systematic about this.
Curious to hear how your timing is on Parallel questions!
#help
Is it fair to say that "much of..." relates to " most of" in the same way that "many" relates to "some"? (and like how "often/frequent" relates to "most of the time")?
Ex: (Q10, AC E) "Much of Gray's later work was function as well as ornamental"
If I were to say "most of Gray's later work was X, I'm saying 51%+ of her later work was X. But if I say "much of", I'm simply saying a big percentage was X, although that "big" percentage could be anywhere from 1% to 99%, and is subjective to the speaker.
arg reasoning: if you have this pro, then (what would otherwise have been) a con is not problematic. this is deeper than pro outweighing a con - this is saying that a pro reduces the con's negativity, or even makes it not have a bearing on how "successful" the outcome is.
analogous argument 1
Republicans: the criticism of Reagan not being a policy expert is misguided. It is certainly true that Reagan is not a policy expert. This could be problematic, but in his case he is a very inspiring leader. And that is the most important thing for a President.
analogous argument 2
opa: your vote to filling a supreme court vacancy in 43 days hurts our country's institutions.
Mitt Romney:
ctx/concession: voting to fill a vacancy in 43 days hurts our country's institutions, which could be problematic.
p (new criteria): the most important thing about my vote is to add conservative justices.
p: voting to fill a vacancy in 43 days would add conservative justices.
c: my vote is shielded from your charge of hurting my country's institutions. (your argument is misguided).
analogous argument 3
Disney exec:
ctx: we may be milking the Star Wars franchise, which could be problematic.
p: the most important criteria for deciding success is if the new content is loved by kids, and it is.
c: we're shielded from criticisms of milking the franchise.
a less dreary example:
ctx: this desk is old, which could be problematic.
p: the most important thing for a desk is how sturdy it is, and this desk is very sturdy.
c: criticizing the desk for being old is misguided.
Flaw: the last straw =/= the most potent straw
Analogous argument 1:
p: This person has 5 health conditions
p: A 6th health condition is introduced, and the person dies.
c: The 6th health condition was the most potent out of the 6.
fails to consider: perhaps one of the 5 health conditions earlier was the most intense (maybe one of them was cancer). The sixth one was simply a flu, and it was the thing that tipped the person over the threshold of death. But what did the most work in bringing that person to that threshold was actually cancer.
flaw/lesson: the last straw doesn't mean it was the heaviest straw on the camel's back.
Analogous argument 2:
p: I have 10 items in my Trader Joe's non-double bagged paper bag.
p: After I add an 11th item, my Trader Joe's non-double bagged paper bag tears at the bottom and everything falls out.
c: the 11th item was the heaviest item out of the 11, and was the most responsible for my bag tearing.
fails to consider: maybe one of the 10 items earlier was way heavier (like a jug of milk), and far more responsible. The 11th item was just something light like a yogurt, but it was the item that tipped my bag's carrying capacity over the threshold.
Analogous argument 3:
p: the matador is the one that delivers the killing stroke on the bull.
c: the matador contributed the most to the killing of the bull.
takes for granted: killing stroke = most work. maybe the picador did most of the work in weakening the bull, and left the killing stroke up to the matador.
*
*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
flaw 2/related flaw: being old has some relationship to being harder to beat. maybe old means easier to eliminate (because it's been worn down from the other "black waters").
Analogous argument 1:
p: Hernán Cortés conquers a 221 year old civilization.
c: Hernán Cortés is the best conqueror in the past 221 years.
here conquering an old civilization has nothing to do with being a good conqueror. other attributes at play about the civilization (it may have been more vulnerable, isolated, etc) are better explanations for the conquest.
My comment is going to talk about why (A) is wrong:
Fell for (A) several times. I need to understand that a relationship between two variables that exists when all else is held constant means that that relationship may not generally exist between those two variables.
Analogies:
More natural talent means more exceptional performance if and only if athlete effort is held constant. That does not (necessarily) mean more natural talent GENERALLY means (or more extreme, WILL mean) more exceptional performance.
quantity (weighlifting supplements) have a linear relationship with quantity (muscle gains) if and only if weightlifting effort is held constant. That does not (necessarily) mean weightlifting supplements WILL/ GENERALLY have a linear relationship with muscle gains.
More moves examined/time means higher p(winning) if and only if chess program quality is the same. That does not (necessarily) mean more moves examined/time GENERALLY means higher p(winning).
Greater wealth has a linear relationship with higher LSAT performance if and only if student effort is held constant. That does not (necessarily) mean wealthier students generally will have a higher LSAT performance (if student effort is not held constant).
The level of development in a nation's health industry has a linear relationship with that nation's covid-19 performance if and only if government competence is held constant. That does not (necessarily) mean the level of development in a nation's health industry has a linear relationship with the nation's covid-19 performance generally. i.e., if varying degrees of government competency are added in as a variable along with health industry development, then our linear relationship might not exist.
Greater power means greater good for the world if and only if we hold the user's do-goodness constant. That does not mean that greater power always leads to greater good for the world (ex: supervillains have great power but lower the amount of good for the world). This linear relationship only holds if we're talking about a fixed/certain set of people)
Logic takeaways:
The linear relationship/ f(x) exists in a biconditional space (if and only if) with specific conditions (all else held equal/ cetaris paribis). We can't take this linear relationship and extrapolate it out as existing generally without the specific conditions.
A word about c:
(C) is comparing a program to itself (holds the program constant - under these conditions, more moves means more p(win)).
Following!! This might be already answered, but is there any difference between the 7sage algorithim/data and the mylsn one (https://mylsn.info/ijc1gt/)? Mylsn is way more generous in its probability rates than 7sage - taking both with a grain of salt, but want to know what the differences are in the two programs?
Interested!!
Thanks @! Which exam/section will we be reviewing? Is it PT35RC?
¶1. great perfume should be taken more seriously than it currently is.
¶2-3. perfume/oil painting have similar materials, processes, and effects on the end-user.
¶4. a possible cause of undervaluation is corporate compromising of fine perfume.
structure: a phenomenon is presented (perfume undervalued), reasons for why the phenomenon is not okay are given (perfume is similar to painting), and a possible cause of the phenomenon is given.
the emphasis/purpose, however, is that perfume should not be undervalued (rather than why it is).
Hey everyone! I wanted to ask if there was some form of process / equation / anything mechanistic to attack the math questions dealing with proportions and absolute values?
Having to constantly plug and chug numbers (or drawing pies) is fine, but I wish there was something more elegant that wouldn’t leave me with the feeling that I might be leaving out some possible consideration. It's been taking me far longer than other question types (and it's hard to be consistent) to get to the right AC for math questions.
Additionally, I haven't finished the core curriculum yet, but are nearly all the questions-that-require-you-to-conclude-something-about-a-number on the LSAT just dealing with % vs quantity?
I’m a US citizen/have a US home address etc but just moved to the UK to start grad school for a year. I took the August LSAT Flex in the US, but want to register for the November LSAT-Flex. November is not offered in the Europe region though!
Is the testing region based upon where you are located when taking the test, or where you are from? Could I register for the November LSAT (US region) even though I’m taking it in the UK?
More backstory:
I did register for October though so will take that test if I can't register for November. Ideally, I want to take it in November rather than October because I'll have more time. I got a 169 on the August LSAT (I'm grateful for the score), but know that I can do better (based upon my avgs), but think I'll need more time than 2 weeks.
To current law students / law school grads: how have the analytical lessons from Logic Games transferred over to your work?
I’m confident LG will help me as a law student (although right now how it will help me still belongs to this abstract mist of “it’s good for me, just keep your head down, and keep doing it!”), but I’m curious how exactly. If anyone who is now doing something law-related has been seeing the effects of their LG training (the spatial elements of LG, manipulating rules, etc) play out in their law-related lives, I’m curious to hear your thoughts!
Can anyone help me with translating this statement into a conditional?
"The purpose of art is to cause experts to debate ideas"
JY (and the world) translated it as: "cause debate" --> "purpose of art"
I translated this as: "purpose of art" --> "cause debate"
My rationale was from experience with translating "is" statements: i.e, cows are cool = cows --> cool; the meaning of life is 42 = the meaning of life --> 42
I understand context matters, but here I thought context still allowed me to read the statement as purpose of art is [X], therefore purpose of art --> X. If my reasoning error is misreading the context, then what parts of the stim leads you to read it as X --> purpose of art? If my reasoning error is logical, please point out my oversight!
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-12/
(A) This is consistent with the argument. (argument would say: yeah! People buy shit for a long time! Modifications help people!)
(B) This downplays the role of the naming as a means of distinguishing. There are other ways of distinguishing! Strengthens the argument's point that consumers have little reason to object to the naming practice.
(C) Translation: The same products are often sold with different names.
- Does not apply to the stimulus. The argument’s “practice” is about different products having the same names. This AC is talking about the same product having different names. This could be problematic for consumers, but the stimulus is arguing about the practice of different products having the same names.
(D) This addresses the assumption: the modifications may be beneficial, but the naming practice may cause people to not receive the benefits.
(E) Ok so we’re given a reason/more details behind the origins of this naming practice, this is consistent with the argument.
Notes/ Lessons:
The argument is concluding that because the naming practice is connected to this awesome thing (improved models that benefit the buyer), this practice isn't bad - there's little reason to be opposed to the naming practice.
AC (D) gives us a reason. (D) shows us that improvements vs knowledge of/implementation of (improvements) are two separate processes. If consumers don't get the improved models (D provides us a reason for that possibility), the practice (even if it is connected with awesome improvements) could be objectionable (have negatives).
Logical structure: this practice is connected to something highly positive, so this practice isn't bad.
- "there is little reason to object to this practice" means that this practice isn't bad.
- the argument assumes that the practice doesn't detract from those great benefits.
Cookie cutter tags: development vs knowledge of/means of implementing (development).
Analogy: I have this awesome vaccine, but its marketed poorly. but the vaccine will help people, so there is little reason to object to the marketing method. Flaw: If the marketing method affects whether the vaccine will help people, there will be a reason to object to the marketing method.
Paragraph 1
Low res: evolutionary psych
High res: evolutionary psych runs into paradox of altruism
Structure: phenomena/paradox
Organization: author tells us what evolutionary psych is, what it believes in, and why this runs into a problem w/ altruism.
Sneak Peek: author is going to resolve the paradox for us by presenting a hypothesis/theory.
Details that stuck out to you?
- Evolutionary psych is different from the theory of evolution (related & associated but distinct terms).
Paragraph 2
Low res: self-propagation
High-res: the genes behind identification and empathy are just trying to help themselves, so provoke you to help others.
Organization: the author describes a hypothesis that resolves the paradox to e-psych, and applies it in an example.
Structure: hypothesis
Hook back: we have posed a hypothesis that resolves the paradox in ¶1.
Sneak Peek: we are probably going to get back around to the more specific question posed in ¶1 about how the genes behind altruism are still around today.
Tone: descriptive
Details that stuck out to you?
- There is a difference between the state of empathy and the genes behind the state of empathy. The state of empathy is when you do want to help others. But the genes behind the state of empathy are driven by their self-survival.
- Author’s tone about this hypothesis is not conclusive. Uses probably (possible likelihood), could have increased, may thus operate
Paragraph 3
Low res: large communities
High res: you continue to help those in your community (because those genes behind altruism have engineered you to help your community/relatives [once upon a time, to help themselves])
Hook back: address the evolution of this gene today question in ¶1.
Organization: author presents a method that those genes in kin-based environments still operate in non-kin based environments (our community used to be all relatives, so we help people in our community).
Tone: descriptive
Details that stuck out to you?
- “May have arisen”
Passage Summary
Topic/Title: altruism in evolutionary-psych
Main Point: altruism evolved because the genes behind altruism wanted to self-propagate by helping relatives.
AA: supports this hypothesis ("answer probably lies")
Viewpoints: evolutionary psych, author’s
Cookie Cutter: phenomena/paradox and hypothesis
Primary Purpose: the author is trying to show us how a paradox can be resolved and keep e-psych consistent
Author’s tone: Descriptive, qualified/hedged- persuasive ("the answer probably lies").
Organization: author presents a theory, a paradox that the theory runs into, and then a hypothesis that resolves the paradox for the theory.
Paragraph 1
Low-res: gradual development
High-res: true significance is gradual development
Structure: argument
Sneak Peek: we’re going to get stage 1 of its development and see its arc. (possibility there is a shift in direction, but thankfully, no).
Paragraph 2
Low-res: evolution
High-res: loose (communicate with spirits) to string wampum (simple political)
Structure: premise
Hook Back: one part of the premise to the argument put forward in ¶ 1.
Sneak Peek: we’re going to get the final stage of wampum’s development (premise 2) to support fully the argument that wampum’s true significance is development.
Details that stuck out: loose to string wampum (oldest to later development)
Paragraph 3
Low res: peace
High-res: wampum developed into belts that communicated full-fledged political ideas (passports, laws)
Structure: second part of premise
Hook Back: one part of the premise to the argument put forward in ¶ 1.
Thoughts: oh so this paragraph shows us that there is a slight difference between the political uses of wampum (from truce requests) to socio political uses (permanent peace)
Passage
Topic: wampum beads
Title: Loose beads, strings, and belts: wampum beads’ development from medium of religion to peace (in a lay anthropology magazine!)
Main Point: The true significance of wampum beads is its development from religious to socio political purposes.
AA: anti-most historians who think wampums were primarily a form of money in pre-contact H society
Viewpoints: most historians, Europeans
Cookie Cutter: evolution passage (from one stage: religion, to another: socio political with many examples and details)
Primary Purpose: author is trying to show us why wampum beads are truly significant
Author’s tone: persuasive (¶1), descriptive (¶2/3)
Organization: author presents an argument, and presents each of the premises supporting the argument.
AC (D)'s problems:
Issue 1: I didn't catch on to "many". Many indicates at least one medicine is affected. What if these medicines within this "many" category are unrepresentative of the treatments?
Issue 2: I didn't catch on to its irrelevance to the argument which is about low magnesium (and therefore, this point of high magnesium is consistent with the argument).
Structure: implies that high magnesium is also bad (inducing us to think that therefore, low magnesium isn't as bad).
If we make the generous assumption that magnesium supplement can be associated with high levels of magnesium (which I didn't find as big of an issue as JY), this would support the idea that both hard water (high magnesium) and soft water (low magnesium) increase the risk of illness. So it still leaves the argument [that soft water will increase the risk of illness] alone.
At best, it introduces the idea that high magnesium (which we could assume to be a feature of hard water) will also increase the risk of illness.
General question notes:
Title: low magnesium (via soft water) likely to elevate risk of illness!
Logical structure: premise: low magnesium correlated with illness, assumption: low magnesium causes illness, conclusion that soft water (low magnesium) would increase risk of illness
Cookie cutter tags: correlation-causation flaw, phenomena (assumption about phenomena) - application to something else.
Stray notes:
- metabolize means to get rid of, not to absorb. the deterioration of your ability to metabolize magnesium would probably elevate your magnesium levels.
- AC A's point about frequency is irrelevant to the argument about whether magnesium deficiency (if we associate that with "low" magnesium) can cause illness
AC (D)'s problems:
Anticipate: To parallel the stem, we would have to say that better performance makes you taller (which is not what it goes on to say.) It says: height causes you to play more which causes you to have better performance.
Stray Insights:
- “Depends” in this stem is not used as a necessary condition. Depends is used as a causal (or even weaker, simply a connection) statement. (pre-existing state of health is the cause/a partial cause/influence)
- Not relevant to this stem, but it sparked a reminder: remember that "often" is similar to "many" (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/14061), additional reminder that "typically/usually" is similar to most.
General question notes:
Reasoning structure: premise: B cause A, conclusion: the phenomena (that A correlated with B) does not prove that A causes B.
Argument description: The author is weakening a possible hypothesis about a phenomena by introducing a reverse causation.
Tags: correlation/causation (reverse causation)
Does "entails" introduce a necessary condition? JY seems to use it verbally in the video to indicate so. #help
Are copyright laws and patent laws subsets of intellectual property laws? #help
Passage A
Paragraph 1
Low Res: negative evidence
High Res: Popper overextends the power of negative evidence.
Structure: author presents scientist’s theory, and the application of this theory.
Sneak peek: author is going to tell us why (the reasoning/premises) behind popper's overextension
AA: “hyperbolic” use (exaggerated the importance of this fact)
Paragraph 2
Low res: auxiliary premises
High res: Popper fails to consider the role of auxiliary premises.
Structure: author presents factors in practice that the scientist’s application overlooks, and using the premise that there are other possible explanations, concludes that negative evidence is not “tantamount to disproof” of a theory.
Main Point: Popper fails to consider auxiliary premises, and overextends use of negative evidence.
AA: anti-Popper (w/ concessions to Popper)
Cookie Cutter: (1) LR reasoning trope: OPA fails to consider practical considerations (auxiliary premise), OPA is one possible explanation, not the only explanation; (2) scientist goes too far.
Primary Purpose: author is trying to show us that Popper’s principle is overly exaggerated.
Viewpoints: Popper, author.
Tone: descriptive (¶1), persuasive (¶2)
Organization: author presents a scientist’s theory, and that scientist’s application of the theory. Author uses points the scientist has failed to consider to show that the scientist's theory goes too far.
Passage B
Paragraph 1
Low-res: auxiliary premise
High-res: negative evidence, theory survives (auxiliary premises changed).
Structure: premise
Sneak Peek: author will use this example/illustration to reach the same conclusion that passage A reached, and lay into Popper.
Paragraph 2:
Low-res: theory
high-res: negative evidence, theory disproved.
Structure: premise
MP: descriptive context-placing passage. Sometimes aux premises are the issue, sometimes the theory is the issue.
AA: neutral, but the existence of ¶1 suggests that the author would agree with passage A that negative evidence is not tantamount to disproof. (anti-Popper stance). By virtue of showing that [negative evidence and /disprove theory], the author is most likely going to agree that [not (negative evidence ---> disprove theory)].
Cookie Cutter: two examples
Viewpoints: author’s
Tone: Descriptive
Organization: author presents two examples of the possible implications of negative evidence.
Connection between both passages: passage A presents theoretical counter to Popper (F2C), passage B presents two examples/ case studies, one showing that Popper's explanation is wrong and one showing that Popper's explanation is correct, which is at the very least consistent with, and at the most supporting, passage A's argument that popper's explanation is a possible correct explanation, but not the only one. [not (negative evidence ---> disproof theory)].
(1) My professor asked if I wanted specific letters of recommendation written to law schools. Is it possible for a professor to write multiple letters of recommendation for me to upload to LSAC (to be assigned to different schools?)
(2) Is this a practice in law school admissions? LSAC’s guidelines indicate this is possible, but is this a practice that comes up with downsides? (like because this isn’t the norm, it might come off negatively or as collusion)
Misc:
LSAC guidelines seem to imply that a school-specific reference is done when your recommender is writing to their alma mater. But could if your professor just wants to tailor their letter to a school’s interest? And circling back to (1), can they upload both a general letter and a school-specific letter to LSAC? https://www.lsac.org/applying-law-school/jd-application-process/credential-assembly-service-cas/letters-recommendation#:~:text=LSAC%20LOR%20Service&text=If%20you%20use%20LSAC's%20LOR,in%20your%20law%20school%20reports
Is it possible to schedule the LSAT flex in the middle of the night? Taking the test in the middle of the night would be the most safe option for minimizing disturbances for my environment, but I was wondering if it was even possible.
Are available test times on a 24-7 basis for your region? In previous proctorU registrations I only looked at the specific time I wanted so I didn’t really look at how wide-ranging the times that they had were.
For instance, if I was in the region (Europe, Africa, and the Middle East), would the time slot “3 am” in the UK even be an option for me haha, or are all the time slots limited to just early morning to reasonable nighttime hours. If anyone remembers that would be helpful!
--–————————————————
Side note:
IF ProctorU has 24-7 availabilities, I am also of course curious to hear about any health/scientific comments on health impacts/performance of switching to a nocturnal life. (I used to wake up at 9 AM, sleep at midnight). It would be a major change, but there are 16 days to go until Jan 19 so I think it's possible to adjust to being nocturnal. Just not sure if there might be unknown consequences.
Is it possible to schedule the LSAT flex in the middle of the night? Taking the test in the middle of the night would be the most safe option for minimizing disturbances for my environment, but I was wondering if it was even possible.
Are available test times on a 24-7 basis for your region? In previous proctorU registrations I only looked at the specific time I wanted so I didn’t really look at how wide-ranging the times that they had were.
For instance, if I was in the region (Europe, Africa, and the Middle East), would the time slot “3 am” in the UK even be an option for me haha, or are all the time slots limited to just early morning to reasonable nighttime hours. If anyone remembers that would be helpful!
--–————————————————
Side note:
IF ProctorU has 24-7 availabilities, I am also of course curious to hear about any health/scientific comments on health impacts/performance of switching to a nocturnal life. (I used to wake up at 9 AM, sleep at midnight). It would be a major change, but there are 16 days to go until Jan 19 so I think it's possible to adjust to being nocturnal. Just not sure if there might be unknown consequences.
Low-res summaries:
1+2: both harshly criticized
3: B got revived
4: S similar, style 1: late romantic
5: style 2: inevitable
6: style 3: new method
7: unrecorded emotional states
Topic: Schoenberg (the title I would give: Schoenberg revisited)
Main Point: Schoenberg is a great artist (because of: disquieting emotional states)
Primary Purpose: Author is trying to show why Schoenberg is a great artist (disquieting emotional states), in spite of popular flak he gets.
Viewpoints: “many listeners”, critics. Author thinks these people aren’t appreciating Schoenberg fully.
Author’s Attitude: really likes Schoenberg, seeking to revise Schoenberg’s reputation.
Tone: descriptive (¶1-6), persuasive (¶7)
Cookie Cutter: Artist under-appreciated, is good because of the new content it produced
Organization: Harsh criticism of one artist is analogized to harsh criticism of an obviously great one, the artist’s evolution is presented and author argues that artist’s content is what makes him great.
^^ditto what grace said, thank you so much for your time on tuesday and monday! they were such growth experiences!
Help!! I would like to withdraw from the July LSAT-Flex today this weekend, but there is no button available on the LSAC website account to do so, and the LSAC website says that withdrawing is permissible up until 11:59 PM EST the night before the test (July 11).
I understand this is terribly irresponsible and I should not be doing so this late but I wanted to ask if there was a way to withdraw?? The LSAC website doesn't have a button available under "eligible to withdraw" and I sent them an email but they probably won't respond because it's Friday night.
Should I withdraw on Proctor U?
Down to join again! Looking forward.
What does Columbia Law School's "approximately two pages in length" mean? Currently putting sentences to address the "why you're interested in Columbia in particular" component of the personal statement.
I'm assuming 2.3 pages is about the limit right, like 2 and a half pages is definitely too much?
Which schools require 12 pt fonts for personal statements? In my manual search, I haven't seen any so far. All seem to be okay with 11-pt font (Times New Roman).
Does anyone know when registration will open for the June/ July / August / September 2020 LSAT dates? Will registration open for those dates on the same day, or in a cascading order?
Sorry if this administrative-kind of question has been answered elsewhere! I haven't been able to find it online.
I’m led to this question because of these steps (below) that I took lol. Correct me at any point if there is a flaw in how I went about it!
In 72-2-25, /A and /B strengthens A cause B. We want to strengthen the argument’s assumption by showing that A causes B (buy online cause /use car), so we say /A and /B (/buy online and use car). This makes sense to me intuitively because the CAC is saying that /cause correlated with /effect, which strengthens the relationship between cause and effect.
OK SO, IF /A ← correlated→ /B strengthens A -cause-> B (what we have above - no cause and no effect strengthens cause → effect ), does that mean:
A -cause-> B, which implies A ← correlated→ B, implies /A ← correlated → /B?
And if the answer is yes or no, is there a cleaner theoretical reason why?
*footnote: I shortened direct mail advertising (buy phone or online) from 72-2-25 to just “buy online” to focus purely on the theory part. From 72-2-25: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-25/, but this idea has also come up for me as a question in other causation q's.
How do we know the "often" of failed computer model predictions applies to computer model predictions in THIS context??
It doesn't seem like a "reasonable assumption" to me to assume that AC B applies to this context.
I could still reasonably assume that AC is consistent with the paradox, and to read it as we do requires us to read the subset of "often" in AC B in a way the LSAT doesn't expect us to for other ACs?? #help
more info:
yeah it "often" occurs, but we don't know how large the set of computer model predictions are, computer model predictions for seismic pulses could be in the subset where the "often" doesn't apply. I don't find my reading "uncharitable" or "unreasonable".
Right but the "less competition" exists for any earlier application, I'm just curious what difference the Feb. 1 "priority" deadline makes
Not sure if this is common knowledge, but what is the significance of Harvard's priority deadline? (Feb. 1). Does applying by the priority deadline rather than by the regular deadline (March 1) leave an advantage beyond the normal advantage of applying earlier?
I didn't realize this until logging on to the application today — there's a chance I can finalize everything by the priority deadline (tonight, basically), but it would be rushed. I'm wondering if there's a significant benefit to the "priority deadline".
This is super helpful, thank you!!!