Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
dcdcdcdcdc
About
- Username
- dcdcdcdcdc
- Joined
- Visits
- 716
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
This one was rough. I pre-phrased the flaw exactly. Then B and E threw me and I couldn't recover. I went with E because I felt it encompassed the idea of an absentee rate reduction assumption. E references those "employed" and not those working. So …
-
Not sure what context you are asking this in (e.g. you are applying to internships/work now). Depending on where you are looking (i.e. what industry, what company), might be useful. A number of management consulting firms like to see your GMAT scor…
-
Hey, any chance this will be uploaded soon? I've finished the curriculum and am PTing and would be grateful for any further guidance. This webinar looks perfect for that. Thanks!
-
@Sami Can you provide some more info on your suggestion to use certain PTs for drilling and others for actual PTs? Would the drill PTs be used only for concepts you have to reinforce based on your PT results or do you envision spread those sections…
-
Am going to give this a try on PTs as during some re-takes of RC passages I was using a highlight an strictly enforcing the rule to only highlight main points of each paragraph. I felt this forced me to consider to passage structure and withhold jud…
-
@zkchrumz I'm with you on combining things. Never would have been comfortable doing this before seeing a bunch of LR questions where I was over complicating things by separating out the items into embedded conditionals. In this case, as you mentio…
-
Ok, circling back to provide some more info and possibly answer my own question: I think the line citation I gave in support of B is not actually doing what I originally thought. That part of the introductory paragraph is characterizing Dworkin's v…
-
"No migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication except under careful medical supervision" I read this as a group 4 (negate necessary) indicator followed by a group 3 negate sufficient indicator. I did not break "will" out as a…
-
Need to work on my reading comp...:( Read as "law student from Columbia" x_x Either way, impressive work. Great compassion.
-
I think an important consideration would be scholarship money/tuition waivers. If you could attend the law school for a significantly reduced rate and you accept the opportunity cost of several years in school vs. earning income, this could make sen…
-
@tanes256 Maybe there is concern about exchanging information with other test takers in other locations about previous sections that they have yet to take? E.g. I take LG and then in break text friend who had LR and we exchange info. Other than thos…
-
I am shocked that the person was allowed to enter the premises late. I think that should throw into question the soundness of the whole test administration. I recall even for tests such as the SAT that late arrivals were not allowed past the entranc…
-
I've added in a blind review of the games before watching the videos and I find that it is helpful to work through and struggle with the game. I think that BR is a more deliberate way of memorizing the inferences per J.Y.'s approach.
-
Good call on taking it a step further and splitting. Helps think about the statement: if you don't find a witness, then you lose if you the defendant does not take the stand, then you lose --- if you win, then you found a witness and the defendant …
-
This is excellent. Thank you so much!
-
I second @"Ron Swanson" on the LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim. I started there before digging into the RC curriculum in 7Sage because of other posts I came across on the forum. I think the Trainer does an excellent job of breaking down reasoning structure…
-
Thanks. Good point on the assumption that the poll is representative to begin with. My issue is that assessment can be defined as analysis or consideration, which is the reasoning process, rather than just the conclusion itself.
-
Thanks. I agree now that each problem set should be approached with the same mind set, exactly as we would the test. I guess I'll settle for feeling good when I do well on a set after BR and find out the questions were of a higher difficulty.
-
Thanks. I think I was arriving (slowly, but surely) at that understanding. The A / B comparison is operating on Alan going to the park and Chris going to the park. We move the shared predicate into each of the two elements. So it is deceptive for me…
-
I agree that P is redundant because it is really the third element which we are using to determine the state of Alan and/or Chris. I was interested in diagramming each statement (or, but not both) and combining them after re-watching the "neither, …
-
@tamzidamila I think that is why the OR statement is also supplied, which would be at least one. So combination of "at least one" and "at most one" results in the bi-conditional. @"Cant Get Right" "A or C got to the park." That is my diagram showin…
-
You can print these two pages: 1-3: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/valid-argument-forms-1-3-of-9/ 4-9: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/valid-argument-forms-4-9-of-9/
-
@quinnxzhang said: It seems like a lot of the confusion here arises from an attempt to contort natural language quantifiers, such as "most, many, more than half, finitely many, etc.", into the universal/existential dichotomy. This is a doomed proje…
-
@runiggyrun Thanks! I learned a long time ago not to fight with LSAC about right and wrong, but rather to force myself to internalize the reasons for that outcome. This question was particularly tough as I had just come from RRE questions where som…
-
I believe that your example would be interpreted as "if it is a material needed to build a desk, then it is wood, a saw, nails and a hammer." This doesn't lead to the outcome of having built a desk. I often rely on an example that you might hear o…
-
Can't offer any specific insights as I am early on in my review process. However, I'm BRing some drills now and noticing some of the same things. It is, as you say, both encouraging and frustrating to perform well under time pressure, but not being …
-
Thanks for the quick reply @LSATisland I am slowly coming around to this distinction. It is tough because, as I pointed out at the end of my original post, much of that distinction takes place beyond the written first premise, though it is implied…
-
@quinnxzhang: Thanks for your input. I concede your points about some and all statements above as well as the ability of the NOT() to negate the entire conditional of unless. I went back and looked over the question carefully and it is clear that n…
-
@quinnxzhang said: You make a jump from 'Not(Until TP can ES)' to 'NOT(/TP -> ES) How so? I applied UNTIL as negate sufficient to the stuff inside the parenthesis. TP until ES does translate to /TP --> ES... I agree, you have to be cognizan…
-
You can also translate correctly by applying the "until" group three negation and then seeing the NOT as applying to the whole conditional statement (which I believe is the grammatically correct way to read it) and then do the logical negation of th…