Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
attorneysomerville
About
- Username
- attorneysomerville
- Joined
- Visits
- 47
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
This is a "must be true" question, so you're going to have to PROVE the answer is true using ONLY the premises in the stimulus. If we find the right answer, it MUST BE TRUE, which means it CAN'T BE FALSE. So let's see how that works for answer choic…
-
Is it Beta? I just heard about it on June 1 (launch day) and am experimenting with it. Didn't have to make any non-disclosure agreements that I recall.
-
I hate this kind of question. Normally, I read the stimulus very carefully because I find it easier to find the flaw than to match it with the answer. That's especially true here--it is a classic example of an incorrect negation but that's not what …
-
I agree with your hunch, here. Not all strengthen questions involve a necessary assumption, but I think that every "eliminate the weakness" variant does.
-
Nice insights!
-
Actually, I don't know why you edited it, but I see I better err on the super safe side. I value the input I get here tremendously, and I am NOT trying to exploit this side to boost my own business. This community is one of the finest places on the…
-
Just went over this and got to try out the "A/B" and "/[AB]" explanations. It went great. SO much for making up two new symbols to replace the "double not arrow." Let's go with Quinn's approach! Admin edit: You know why I edited this. Last warning.
-
So... I'm still thinking through what you said, Quinn. I hadn't thought of writing down the original statement in the "A or B" form. THAT would be fast, easy, and powerful. Likewise, I should read a "A->/B" rule and write down "/A or /B," which i…
-
Quinn, I agree with your logic but not your advice. I can figure out "/A->B" on the fly by saying, "So... if A is IN, B can go anywhere, so they can both be in." But... it takes a moment to work that out, and it would take ME a moment to work out…
-
I just posted a new idea that is especially intended to help in/out games. Look for my "better than a double not" post.
-
[Admin] No advertising.
-
Your argument assumes that "1+1=3" is false without stating that it is false. If you spelled it out fully instead of making that assumption, the atomic proposition would appear twice. It is certainly possible to make assumptions that are never spel…
-
Thanks, Quinn. I took academic logic a long time ago... very likely before you were born, which means you're much more likely to be correct than I am, working from memory. Insofar as the large majority of LR stimuli involve conditional or categor…
-
I chose the term "term" after looking around hard for another word to express the concept. If you know a better word for the symbols we use in conditional statements, please let me know. I know that logicians routinely refer to the "terms" of a cate…
-
A->B A Therefore B
-
Good example, @quinnxzhang. Interesting example, too, since I had gone over it and used it to support the "some people say" principle (which I have discussed elsewhere) without noticing that it broke the "should" principle. "Normative" is a better …
-
PrepTest 63, Section I, Question 8 has an extreme case of "some people say." I won't quote the actual text, since it is copyrighted, but the logic of it is identical to this: Student complaint: Professor Smith was wrong to say that "climate science…
-
I'm sorry, @quinnxzhang, I miscommunicated. What I TRIED to say (as clearly as possible) was that "IF the word should appears in a stimulus, THEN it appears in the conclusion." In a moral argument, "should" often appears as a premise... but I have y…
-
You guys are truly terrific. Thank you for your honest feedback, and the broader perspective on the LSAT that informs it. That said... Quinnxzhang, what do you perceive to be the conclusion in PT9.S2.Q20? I think it is "A university should not be…
-
DEEPLY grateful for the all the constructive criticism and counterexamples, folks. I have edited the title of this post (it's a "principle," not a "rule" now).
-
Can't_Get_Right, I am simultaneously humbled and flattered by your comment. I couldn't agree more that we need to distinguish between the "laws of logic," which are necessarily and always valid, and empirical observations about LSAT stimuli. No matt…
-
MrSamlam, your point SHOULD be accurate... but in practice, I have found few, if any, actual LSAT stimuli where the conclusion does NOT deny the "antithesis" statement. It makes a certain amount of sense that they wouldn't--LSAT stimuli are a tightl…
-
I love the bicycle analogy. I'm going to use it from now on. Do I owe you royalties?
-
Three cheers for being brave enough to challenge the contrapositives! I hope I can demonstrate why they work to your satisfaction. If I can't, I'm pretty sure someone else will be able to do so. Let's turn an abstract "A->B" statement into somet…
-
Elegant and essential distinction, Runniggyrun.
-
Runniggyrun... in light of the PT68.S3.Q5 example, I'm not so sure I'm ready to concede this as a counterexample. You say "the 'blame' nowhere appeared in the original statement by the musicians." Doesn't the word "rob" connote a moral and/or legal …
-
Runniggyrun, thanks for both the counterexample and the caution. In defense of using the "some people say" rule, I came up with it because some students struggle with the basic task of finding the conclusion. It's not so much a shortcut as a "crut…
-
Can't_Get_Right, I started off as cautious as you are. I figured these "some people say" statements could just as easily lead to a conclusion of "And they're right" as anything else. But so far I haven't found any such examples. The "some people say…