Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DumbHollywoodActor
About
- Username
- DumbHollywoodActor
- Joined
- Visits
- 10,190
- Last Active
- Roles
- Inactive ⭐
Comments
-
Can you BR the games perfectly? If not, I’d say a trip back to the main curriculum is in order. If your BR is perfect, then I’d say you need to increase your fool proofing of a game. Memorize those inferences. And for some people (I’m one of them),…
-
For me, the flaw is that the argument equates the "person to person" with the "connoisseurs". But they might not be equals. Among connoisseurs, there might not be any wildly differing emotional impact to a painting. So your other option, that there …
-
@Sheri123 said: is it worth getting the 2nd one as well? It’s a nice resource for people who’ve done EVERY test (and often repeated), so that they can have a fresh test, one that has a comparative passage (which A,B and C don’t). IMO, since you’re…
-
@Sheri123 LSAC has released 4 non-disclosed tests over the years. 3 of them are compiled in their Superprep book, each test titled A, B and C. A 4th test was recently released in Superprep2.
-
I think the difficulty is that it’s a bizarre statement. Classic Group 2: http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/basic-translation-group-2/ Th “only” takes precedence over the “cannot." /TW-->P (If it’s not translated well, then it’s poetry) or /P--&…
-
@twssmith said: Any clue if Cambridge will sell PT76 pdf? There’s a message on the site stating that their PDFs will no longer be available in the near future (nothing more specific than that). Given that info, it’s entirely possible that they won…
-
If you can’t make it tonight, fret not. The December test takers are working on it next Wednesday!
-
@jimenezja.jj
-
@Pacifico +1. I don’t think you need to go back to the curriculum just yet (although I would like to know your LG score). Chances are you know how to dissect an argument, know your logical indicators and your valid arguments, etc... Instead, let’s g…
-
@keeper962 said: some A-->B Have you gone through the curriculum? I would just diagram this A some B Premise: halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL ( HL some OD) Premise: any item on display at FL is well-crafted (O…
-
A fact can be part of some context, so there’s no issue there. The issue with answer E is that the conclusion isn’t trying to defend artistic preferences of people in general. It’s making a claim about artistic preferences. Super subtle, I know.
-
Was one section down considerably or was every section down about the same? It could have been simply a catastrophic bubbling error.
-
Happy Veterans Day!
-
Hope to see you at Group BR tomorrow. We're working on this exact PT. We don't need to have terms match the stimulus. We need to explain how both these disparate claims can exist together, in this case how the standards and centralization of plann…
-
@mike said: BTW -- here’s a random video I thought you all might enjoy -- melodramatic for sure, but interesting (in relation to this discussion) nonetheless -- Geesh! Thanks for the pick-me-up, Mike! But, I think if I get a 170+, I will make…
-
If you can't blind review close to perfect, that just means you need to go through the logic curriculum again. I must have gone through those portions of the curriculum 4 times to solidify my understanding of the games. Once you have that understand…
-
Agreed. Take a break. I promise. In one week, you'll feel so much better. And these valid arguments will seem so simple. Take break. Talk to people. Tell someone how awesome they are. Take. A. Break.
-
Why might the argument be overvaluing the traits in the premise? Why might the fact that more pedestrians get hit by cars when crossing with the light than crossing against NOT follow that it is less dangerous to cross against the light than cross …
-
Go to the LG Explanations (http://classic.7sage.com/logic-game-explanations/), pick a game from the test your looking for. If there is an explanation, there will be a link somewhere below the LG explanation.
-
@Pacifico @poohbear @Thankyou7 @lalafiggy @blah170blah @truekauai I love that this problem has engendered all of this discussion. @c.janson35 said: The investigators have not proved that lightning caused the fire. Nor have they proved that campers…
-
I’m answering your most recent post here because I think the conversation we were having here is indicative of your difficulty. I think you’re really trying to put the cart before the horse. Based on the information you’ve given, I’d say you should …
-
@c.janson35 said: I think the key might be to think of "campers or lightning" as a single entity here. It's possible that the entity has been proven by eliminating other possibilities, but the conclusion on the particular aspects of the entity are …
-
bump @bishoplaw
-
@truekauai Okay, so this is getting somewhere. Nice of you to use a film award example, since I AM a dumb Hollywood actor. So the flaw of the argument that I see is that it doesn’t specify one way or another how many films were nominated. I think…
-
@Thankyou7 said: t was supposed to help show that it is in fact circular reasoning because it's literally restating the premises except it's including both into the conclusion rather than individually. Well, Thank you 7 times, @Thankyou7 !
-
@Pacifico said: I think in conditional forms it just necessarily becomes a sufficiency/necessity flip due to the nature of the argument structure itself. I see your point. But I still don’t see how that proves that the stimulus in #14 isn’t a circ…
-
@Thankyou7 said: This diagram of the flaw may be helpful: I ---> not PC I ----> not PL Conc I ----> not PC or PL I’m not sure how that diagram explains that the flaw isn’t circular reasoning, nor am …
-
I hate to use Wikipedia as my source but those examples look rather similar to the stimulus:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
-
@Pacifico said: No it's taking the premises and conclusion and then using the conclusion as a premise to conclude the premises. You have to take it as a whole. Ok. that’s interesting. Can you show me another example?
-
@Pacifico said: if you eat cookies then you are fat; you are fat, therefore you eat cookies". If I’m not mistaken, that example is not circuar reasoning. That’s Sufficiency/Necessity confusion.