I took one of the PTs on the LawHub site as my diagnostic, can I upload that score here instead of backfilling answers?
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I think B is wrong for the following reason, and this helped clarify it for me,
AC says "the river has overflowed in every ST following a WHSF.
ST-WHSF is the sufficient condition. In every one of these (every spring thaw that follows a WHSF), the river has overflowed in the past. The next part of the AC references something that is sufficient for the river to overflow, the high snowfall (if we presume that spring thaw always happens). The sufficiency necessity relationship isn't between spring thaws and winters with high snowfall, I think it's between spring thaws following WHSF and the river overflowing. If we perceive it like this, it's easier to tell why the argument doesn't match the one in the stim, and why E is better. Fwiw I didn't pick up on it during the test and picked B and moved on, but that's my take.
I get why D is right, but I'm not sure I totally understand why A can't imply the genetics hypothesis, and be a fine weakening answer because it's granted the presumption of truth and the conclusion in the stim isn't. I get that the first part of A is accounted for in the stimulus, but the second part about demonstrated athletic ability increasing the likelihood of sports participation (while obvious), is an alternate hypothesis, isn't it? Is the fact that it's contained within the set of "not environmental factors" (so the argument already accounts for it, technically), what rules it out as an alternate hypothesis?
Is it recommended to perform the spectrum of support analysis on actual questions? Just wondering in terms of timing strategy. It definitely helps elucidate what you might skip over if you're just doing it in your head, but yeah. Wanted to get thoughts on that
I picked E, but I was a little tripped up by 50% or more; if they control 50%, they don't control more of the disposable income than the rest of the population combined, they control the same. I knew E was referring to older adults with the obfuscating language, but the fact that the referential language wasn't totally accurate based on the stimulus tripped me up a little. Am I misunderstanding something?
why exactly is "i'm hugging you because i miss you" not an argument? how can "i'm hugging you" not be seen as support? is it because there's nothing in the excerpt that provides evidence that people hug when they miss someone? #help
tiger: not all football players are fast. after all, offensive linemen are very heavy and move in a confined space, so they don't need to be fast.
disney: gpt4 subscribers have access to more recent data and improved communication. only users with access to recent data can see things past 2021. james is a gpt4 subscriber, and accessed data from 2023. therefore, james must have access to more recent data.
trash: pieces from my chess set are all over the floor. it's contents, including the rooks are missing. james, my roommate, mentioned that the rooks are missing from his chess set. james played a game of chess today with his chess set, and he wasn't missing any pieces. as a result, my hypothesis is that james took the rooks from my chess set.
Confused about why A might not trigger the sufficient condition of the conditional conclusion. I understand why D is better, but even if we kick it into the premise set, doesn't A trigger some part of the sufficient condition? Is it wrong because D triggers both?
Helps me a lot to think about necessary condition indicators as restrictive, or dependent. The presence of "only" limits the scope of what speed cars compete in F1 to the fastest (F1 → fastest), but it doesn't at all indicate that every one of the fastest cars competes in F1 (fastest → F1).
Having the same issue!