LSAT prep has changed the way my brain works Forum

[KFV]

Someone posted this on facebook:



And my first thought was, "That'd be an indication that you should trust all people who like big butts, not that you should only trust people who like big butts."

-___-

[dingbat]

your brain's been turned to mush, hasn't it?
(no need to answer, just go dribble in the corner)

[eliztudorr]

ohhh this is hilarious GO LSAT

[manofjustice]

Logic is important.

[Typhoon24]

The lyrics are "I like big butts and I can not lie."

when I saw the meme, I was like "correlation/causation! *...now let me find the correct answer..oh wait."
they don't lie BECAUSE they like big butts, it is just that this particular Six Mix a lot fellow seems to like big butts and also cannot lie.

Oh fuck wrong dude lol

[dingbat]

The lyrics are "I like big butts and I can not lie."

when I saw the meme, I was like "correlation/causation! *...now let me find the correct answer..oh wait."
they don't lie BECAUSE they like big butts, it is just that this particular MC Hammer fellow seems to like big butts and also cannot lie.

Sir Mix-a-Lot =/= MC Hammer

[09042014]

wow, and I thought lounge posters were fucking retarded.

[Tom Joad]

I think the PCP did more than the LSAT prep.

[eav1277]

I think the PCP did more than the LSAT prep.

That was mean but very funny

[Poo-T]

Conclusion: Only trust ppl who like big butts OR If (P) you should trust somebody, then (Q) they like big butts

Premise: they [ppl who like big butts] cannot lie OR if (Q) someone likes big butts, then (R) they cannot lie

So we get the argument
1. show Conc: P --> Q
2. P assume conditional
3. Q-->R premise

The argument is invalid because,

if:
P = true
R = true
Q = false

then the Conclusion (1) is false, despite that both premises (2 & 3) are true.

Did I do good guise?

[jkpolk]

Conclusion: Only trust ppl who like big butts OR If (P) you should trust somebody, then (Q) they like big butts

Premise: they [ppl who like big butts] cannot lie OR if (Q) someone likes big butts, then (R) they cannot lie

So we get the argument
1. show Conc: P --> Q
2. P assume conditional
3. Q-->R premise

The argument is invalid because,

if:
P = true
R = true
Q = false

then the Conclusion (1) is false, despite that both premises (2 & 3) are true.

Did I do good guise?

no.

[jcccc]

I think the PCP did more than the LSAT prep.

lmao woooop