JJJ123 wrote:1. A single anecdote is insufficient to establish a statistical generalization, and so the evidence is insufficient.
2. There are an abundance of good/plausible reasons for believing a correlation exists.
Paragraph 3 was not part of the argument, but was a reflection on the futility and masturbatory nature of this discussion.
A single exception IS in fact enough to show the OP that while a correlation may exist, it doesn't have to dictate how any one individual does on the LSAT.....
cc.celina wrote:OP wasn't interested in establishing a generalization, he was interested in becoming an exception to it. Sometimes common sense is helpful. OP's question was not "masturbatory," he was simply looking for reassurance that he is not doomed.
JJ, It would be helpful if you would move your musings to the "Math for attorneys" section of this forum.... Someone might actually care there.