- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@nc2026 Yeah I don't think the original explanation under the AC (B) regarding Jordan is very strong either. See below:
Jordan's statement doesn't match. In the stimulus, Jordan presents two options that each lead to a bad result. Here, Jordan says you can have either an enjoyable life or a long one, framing them as a tradeoff between two goodthings rather than a choice between two bad outcomes.
I don't think the above is a very strong reason for not selecting (B).
The far bigger reason is that in the OG Terry: it introduces a new conditional in order to disprove. That new conditional is replicated in (A): what if we buy a hose. That is not replicated in (B): which merely gives an existence.
|------------------30%------------------|--10%---|---------------60%------------------------| 100%
Cor AND NOT Dam Cor AND Dam NOT Cor
|--------------------Two-----------------| NOT Two|----Never know if it's Two or NOT Two-----| 100%
Cor: correctly addressed
Dam: damaged
Two: arrive within two days
Premises:
1. If Cor, then P(Dam) < 50%;
2. If Cor AND NOT Dam, then Two;
3. P(Two) < 50%;
---
Reasoning for P(NOT Cor) > 0:
Therefore, P(Cor AND NOT Dam) < 50%;
However, P(Cor AND Dam) < P(Cor AND NOT Dam) < 50%;
Therefore, P(Cor AND NOT Dam) + P(Cor AND Dam) < 50% + 50% = 1;
Therefore, P(Cor) < 1;
Therefore, P(NOT Cor) = 1 - P(Cor) > 0;
Therefore, there MUST BE letters that are misaddressed;
Therefore, (D) is proven because "a large portion" is flexible. It means "some" effectively;
---
Can we make step 10 even stronger?
We can obtain the minimum of P(NOT Cor) by doing the following:
SUPPOSE if NOT Cor, then NOT Two
That's the best-case scenario where ALL (Not Cor mails) arrive in (NOT Two) days, but three days; // To obtain the minimum number
P(NOT Two) > P(Cor AND NOT Dam) - P(Cor AND Dam) at a minimum;
E.g., if among correctly addressed mails, 40 are not damaged and arrive within 2 days, 10 are damaged and arrive within 3 days; Incorrectly addressed mails have to AT A MINIMUM have 31 mails. Suppose ALL incorrectly addressed, 10 + 31 = 41 > 40. Conditions satisfied.
This is my answer:
|------------------30%------------------|--10%---|---------------60%------------------------| 100%
Cor AND NOT Dam Cor AND Dam NOT Cor
|--------------------Two-----------------| NOT Two|----Never know if it's Two or NOT Two-----| 100%
Cor: correctly addressed
Dam: damaged
Two: arrive within two days
We know that:
1. If Cor, then P(Dam) < 50%;
2. If Cor AND NOT Dam, then Two;
3. P(Two) < 50%;
---
P(Cor) < 50%;
Therefore, P(Cor AND NOT Dam) < P(Cor) < 50%;
Because P(Two) >= P(Cor AND NOT Dam);
Therefore, P(Two) < 50% is a necessary condition;
Therefore, MBT
Hey guys,
I'm organizing an LSAT discord study group specifically for people stuck in the range 166-170 and want to get to about 173-176. The key issue this discord group addresses is the lack of community for students who have finished the curriculum and are now looking for a community to PT or do drills with.
Tentatively, we'll have weekly study-together sessions, voice channels, and a buddy system. See you on Discord:)
I can't quite use the invite link to join the discord. It says it's invalid
Hey I'm in Vancouver would love to join one. Score in the 168-170 range
Hey guys I'm down to join. Currently the highest PT is 170. Want to get over 170 and stay stable above it
@Great1720 The far bigger reason is that in the OG Terry: it introduces a new conditional in order to disprove. That new conditional is replicated in (A): what if we buy a hose. That is not replicated in (B): which merely gives an existence.