@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:

JD-MBA are kind of hard to explain. They are the only degree for which there is no true job for... So most end up going to firms and some receive bonuses for their additional degree. MBA's can help law associates understand the business side of law a lot better, but overall, my opinion is that they aren't really worth it. One doesn't seem to help the other. Better to pick one (MBA/JD) and follow through. There's exceptions. But not many.

My end goal is working at a Hedge Fund and this is where I think both degrees with help me. Otherwise, my opinion is that you're paying for skills you'll likely never use. Either the MBA or the JD.

Thanks for doing this! Could you elaborate more on the benefits of having a law degree if the end goal isn't law in any specific shape or form (biglaw, academia, public interest, etc), i guess more specifically, why not just go for an MBA or even MA/MF in Finance kinda thing instead of JD, especially in your case or end goal? Also, what made you decide to put everything on hold and try for law despite the opinion that lawyers are more or less 'scribes' to ibankers and doing more of the tedious work (sidenote, that's not the first time i've heard that, my finance friends are always saying the same thing!) :smile:

@jknauf572 said:

Come on people, lets put together arguments and decide on the best way. Make an argument, and defend it against other arguments.

I bubble after every LG, every RC passage, and every two pages on LR.

My argument is that every act of pulling your answer sheet into position and transferring answers takes valuable time. So with this argument in mind, we must consider the possibility that bubbling at the very end of the each section could be the most time preserving way.

But, we have to weigh this against another variable, which is accuracy (we are also relying on the assumption you can finish each section with time left). Bubbling incorrectly could be a fatal error. So in order to find a happy medium between time preservation and accuracy, I believe the superior way to bubble is the method I and others mentioned above.

Great argument @jknauf572 , thank you :smiley:

"bubble after every double means no trouble"

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 makes sense, that also confirms my thoughts on breaking the flow.

(sidenote: you are not only a pencil guru, but also a bubbling guru! thank you :smiley: )

@akikookmt881 that is useful to know! thanks :smiley:

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 huge fan of your pencil posts ^ :smiley:

what sharpener would you recommend for the Wopex? I've yet to try the Wopex pencils but am now planning on it.

(sidenote: i found the blackwing/kum long point sharpener's blades go dull after about a month or two of sharpening staedtler noricas, so not sure how they'll fare with the wopex. i've also read that the blackwing long point sharpener and wopex don't go well together?)

I was having issues with sharpeners but no more. Palomino Blackwing FTW :smiley:

and I, on the other hand, just realized that I need to restore my medieval lawgic skills, as they are frequently consulted for these type of questions, so that my lawgic mastery, whose authenticity is suspect, will be restored.

As JY mentioned, the extra trick they employed here was that there is a subtle shift to “valley’s bear population” (from the preserve’s bear population, that which we know doubled). And while there is a problem of correlation-causation, the other major trick they employed is, the stimulus has not said much about the population in the valley. How did the entire valley’s population change when road was closed? We do not know for certain. It could have stayed the same, as it was the larger subset here.

How I interpret the stimulus argument, or the "explain like i'm five" version: there was an increase in the subset, therefore there was and can be an increase in the whole.

- cue sirens, flashing red lights, danger, danger -

...okay the big presumption/assumption in the stimulus argument is that: an increase in subset = increase in the whole. And that presumption means they do not consider something like migration, where the whole is net zero, while subset increases. That could be the case too, which totally destroys their argument and terrible presumption.

So one way to weaken is to show the whole valley had a net increase of zero (i.e. did not increase) even while the subset/preserve increased. Most likely phenomenon being direct migration. But in any case, the whole valley population does not increase, and E captures that.

On top of the direct techniques that you could try (like warm-up sections before entering the testing center, adjusting to a regular or morning schedule), maybe visualization techniques are worth a shot? I'm not sure if that's the right term for it, but what I mean is, and for lack of a better term, "trick" your brain/yourself into thinking you are already well in the middle of a PT instead of just beginning one. Something along the lines of what the placebo effect trades on, I think. I'm no expert on this stuff, but it's worth a try in my opinion. Just my two cents. :smile:

You rock, thank you for posting this :smiley:

Thanks for sharing this! :smiley:

Thanks for this heads up @twssmith644 ! p.s. Love the gif...there's no time to "horse around" when it comes to June :wink:

-continues to sacrifice goats - (jk)

Thanks J.Y!

To put it simply, the sentence is just trying to say:

"ROW is required to create EJ."

Badaboom, badabang. ROW = necessary condition.

Interested :smile:

Two flaws here, but this question trades on the second flaw:

o 1. Part/Whole flaw (for example, having the best players doesn't mean the best team, because the players could be uncooperative and thus they have a really weak team with individually strong players)

o 2. More probability than other parts =/= most probability in the whole (for example, even if the best team has a 12% chance of winning, and all other teams each have 1% chance, this does NOT mean the best team has an "almost certainly win" in general or "90% chance of winning".

Translating the tricky grammar, “one cannot be sure that a given political structure is brought about only by certain ecological or climatic factors unless one knows that there are no similarly structured societies not subject to those factors, and no societies that though subject to those facts, are not so structured.”

is really just saying: before you can say something like “cold weather causes communism”, you need to check if there are communist societies that are not cold. e.g. Cuba, where it is warm, is also communist, if that's the case then you cannot say ‘cold weather causes communism’. Then, you need to check if places that are subject to the same factors (cold weather) are not communist, e.g. Norway is cold, but there is no communism. If either a “Cuba” or “Norway” exists, then the hypothesis that “cold weather causes communism” falls apart.

(Cuba = not cold and communist. Norway = cold and not communist).

A) is incorrect because it is not describing a “problem”

B) in incorrect because there is no “general claim” about “the nature of cause and effect relationships”. And, the claim is the conclusion, it is not the premise.

C) is incorrect because while “example” was in the stimulus, that specific “for example” in the stimulus was just a further premise to support the conclusion, it was not an example “showing there is a causal relationship between political structures and environmental conditions”

D) is incorrect because so many things wrong here, there is no “dilemma”, there’s nothing in the stimulus about “cultural phenomenon”

Answer choice E) is correct because it is the case that the philosopher attempts to justify by appeal to the requirements for establishing this kind of causal relationship.

@jordankennedy480 and @jordankennedy480 else, has the meeting started? When I open GTM, it's showing up as "the meeting will begin when 7Sage BR Group arrives", or is it just me?

Requesting Game 4 too (and Game 3 if there's time), waiting with a fresh copy :smile:

@nessak130467.k13.0 hi Nessa! :smiley: question i'd like to ask in the webinar: i got used to an early morning schedule (doing questions by 8:30am) while preparing for a December lsat exam, but now that I'm preparing for the June exam which starts at 1pm-ish, do you think it'd be a good idea to try to "start" everything/PTs closer to1pm, instead of early morning? i tried it out but just felt slightly terrible about wasting the morning not doing questions until noon.

@476.rizeq thanks!!

@publicbenjamin638 definitely! thanks

@publicbenjamin638 Thanks that's really great advice, I will keep that in mind!! :smiley: