LSAC f**ked up on PT1-S3-Q2

I<3ScholarlySweets!
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:56 pm

LSAC f**ked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby I<3ScholarlySweets! » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:52 pm

The stimulus—and the credited response—has the following structure:

A --> ~B
~B --> A


The question is a parallel question. But notice that the reasoning above is invalid (i.e. flawed). The question should be a parallel flaw question; not a parallel question.

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby BillsFan9907 » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:55 pm

No. Back then they didn't tell you if it was flawed or not (or didn't always tell you).

I<3ScholarlySweets!
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:56 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby I<3ScholarlySweets! » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:57 pm

By saying 'no' to the OP, you are committed to the position that "LSAC did not fuck up. The question is not inaccurate."

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby fats provolone » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:58 pm

oh shit you're committed now! it's going on your permanent record

I<3ScholarlySweets!
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:56 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby I<3ScholarlySweets! » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:59 pm

Is fats provolone a literal retard? Sounds like it.

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby BillsFan9907 » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:10 pm

I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:By saying 'no' to the OP, you are committed to the position that "LSAC did not fuck up. The question is not inaccurate."


Yes I am commited to that position.

I<3ScholarlySweets!
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:56 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby I<3ScholarlySweets! » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:18 pm

You must be too stupid to realize that said position is consistent with accepting the invalid (i.e. flawed) reasoning in the OP as valid reasoning.

User avatar
stray
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:18 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby stray » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:18 pm

lol, here we go again.

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby fats provolone » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:22 pm

I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Please don't hate me for sounding sexist, pep, and I know I will get a lot of crap from the femposters here for this, but I think it may be different for me cause I'm a guy. Everyday I get older, I look better, physically. I also accumulate more money. I get more confident and experienced. But I can't fully enjoy life right now cause of certain limitations and because I know there is lots of progress to be made in my life. Men hit their peaks at a later age in their lives. All the women my age are dating older men. If I get married it would be to a 20 year old when I'm 40.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 21841
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Nebby » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:40 pm

I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Hey guys, can we be honest&good ITT? no drama

Username123
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 2:26 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Username123 » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:43 pm

lolz

User avatar
hairbear7
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:28 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby hairbear7 » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:56 pm

I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:By saying 'no' to the OP, you are committed to the position that "LSAC did not fuck up. The question is not inaccurate."


Hahaha wtf

ilikebaseball
Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby ilikebaseball » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:57 pm

I bet you he really thought this thread was a great idea

GreenTee
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:15 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby GreenTee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:18 pm

tagging for lols

User avatar
Hand
Posts: 3519
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Hand » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:29 pm

fats provolone wrote:
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Please don't hate me for sounding sexist, pep, and I know I will get a lot of crap from the femposters here for this, but I think it may be different for me cause I'm a guy. Everyday I get older, I look better, physically. I also accumulate more money. I get more confident and experienced. But I can't fully enjoy life right now cause of certain limitations and because I know there is lots of progress to be made in my life. Men hit their peaks at a later age in their lives. All the women my age are dating older men. If I get married it would be to a 20 year old when I'm 40.


I think I just got a new favorite poster

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4734
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Smallville » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:31 pm

hereisonehand wrote:
fats provolone wrote:
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Please don't hate me for sounding sexist, pep, and I know I will get a lot of crap from the femposters here for this, but I think it may be different for me cause I'm a guy. Everyday I get older, I look better, physically. I also accumulate more money. I get more confident and experienced. But I can't fully enjoy life right now cause of certain limitations and because I know there is lots of progress to be made in my life. Men hit their peaks at a later age in their lives. All the women my age are dating older men. If I get married it would be to a 20 year old when I'm 40.


I think I just got a new favorite poster

:shock: you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together

User avatar
Hand
Posts: 3519
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Hand » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:32 pm

Smallville wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:I think I just got a new favorite poster

:shock: you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together


Jtard did you change your username? Between you and seoulless both with new usernames this is really a massively confusing thread

but no I didn't know this fine specimen yet but I'll be sure to pay attention from here on out

ETA: I petitioned slack for a username change the other day as well but he was not having it unfortunately

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4734
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Smallville » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:38 pm

hereisonehand wrote:
Smallville wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:I think I just got a new favorite poster

:shock: you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together


Jtard did you change your username? Between you and seoulless both with new usernames this is really a massively confusing thread

but no I didn't know this fine specimen yet but I'll be sure to pay attention from here on out

ETA: I petitioned slack for a username change the other day as well but he was not having it unfortunately

Well I did it for like real reasons... I feel like changing urs would be just for the heck of it or something

User avatar
Hand
Posts: 3519
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Hand » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:40 pm

Smallville wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:
Smallville wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:I think I just got a new favorite poster

:shock: you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together


Jtard did you change your username? Between you and seoulless both with new usernames this is really a massively confusing thread

but no I didn't know this fine specimen yet but I'll be sure to pay attention from here on out

ETA: I petitioned slack for a username change the other day as well but he was not having it unfortunately

Well I did it for like real reasons... I feel like changing urs would be just for the heck of it or something


I have real reasons as well! I mean unless you think that "it would be funny" is not a real reason to change my username to Seoulless

NonTradLawHopeful
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:52 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby NonTradLawHopeful » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:44 pm

The question is not inaccurate. LSAC presently deciding to give more information in a question stem is mutually exclusive to the amount of information they chose to give in past LSATs. The task is to find the parallel reasoning...congratulations on being smart enough to figure it out! :roll:

User avatar
Smallville
Posts: 4734
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:57 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby Smallville » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:50 pm

hereisonehand wrote:
I have real reasons as well! I mean unless you think that "it would be funny" is not a real reason to change my username to Seoulless

touche

GreenTee
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:15 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby GreenTee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:40 pm

NonTradLawHopeful wrote:The question is not inaccurate. LSAC presently deciding to give more information in a question stem is mutually exclusive to the amount of information they chose to give in past LSATs. The task is to find the parallel reasoning...congratulations on being smart enough to figure it out! :roll:


A parallel flaw question is a type of parallel reasoning question.

/thread

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby fats provolone » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:45 pm

GreenTee wrote:
NonTradLawHopeful wrote:The question is not inaccurate. LSAC presently deciding to give more information in a question stem is mutually exclusive to the amount of information they chose to give in past LSATs. The task is to find the parallel reasoning...congratulations on being smart enough to figure it out! :roll:


A parallel flaw question is a type of parallel reasoning question.

/thread

you have now committed to disagreeing with the OP! tls is now an open capital entity!

I<3ScholarlySweets!
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:56 pm

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby I<3ScholarlySweets! » Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:03 am

Invalid statements cannot be considered reasoning alone--that is an abuse of language. If a statement is invalid, you must use "flawed" to modify "reasononing" which is equivalent to: "A statement that is invalid."

NonTradLawHopeful
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:52 am

Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2

Postby NonTradLawHopeful » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:11 am

I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Invalid statements cannot be considered reasoning alone--that is an abuse of language. If a statement is invalid, you must use "flawed" to modify "reasononing" which is equivalent to: "A statement that is invalid."


No you don't. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Parallel reasoning is parallel reasoning whether it is flawed or not.
Last edited by NonTradLawHopeful on Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, BamBam2772 and 8 guests