r6_philly wrote: somewhere wrote:
r6_philly wrote:Being relatively rare = doesn't happy often if at all.
If it doesn't happen at all, it's not rare, it's non-existent.
There is abundant evidence, however, that people with lower numbers sometimes get accepted above where their numbers would suggest, and sometimes (but more rarely) even with money. The lower you go, the rarer, obviously, and into non-existence. But the claim that the present case is outlandish is, as I see it, false, and more suggestive of a bruised ego than perception of the truth.
Actually let's say rare = 1% chance. Then if you have a sample of 50, it may not happen AT ALL. That's why I said "not often if at all".
Think of the lotto. Some days people hit it some days nobody hits it. It's rare, but not impossible.
And false comparison, it would be proper to say that someone claiming to have webbed toes as outlandish.
I don't mean to be picking on you, philly, or being overly strict with my parsing of your language— I don't expect that everyone on an internet forum writes every clause with great caution. Still, I maintain that, "Being relatively rare = doesn't happy often if at all" is, strictly speaking, logically false because of the last three words.
Something that does not happen at all should not be called "relatively rare." Something that is relatively rare cannot be said to happen not at all. You're right that something that happens rarely might not occur at all in a too-small sample, but that's not what I was talking about. Relatively rare means it happens (necessarily), but with relative infrequency.
How about this comparison:
There are some 350 million people in this country. How many of them are/were professional motorcycle racers? I honestly don't know; some hundreds? Maybe some thousands? They're quite rare, in any case, no?
How many of them, do you suppose, have applied to or will attend T14 law schools? Current/former pro motorcycle racers in the general population, and in the population of top law school candidates, are awfully rare, right?
Yet I don't consider the claim that you are/were one to be at all outlandish, nor would that claim lead me to call you a troll.
And in the last five or ten years, how many people with high GPAs and ~95th (or whatever) percentile (sub-170) LSATs have been offered large-but-less-than-full-ride scholarships at Virginia? I don't know, but I assume it's probably not a very big number. But I'd bet it's bigger than the number of current/former pro motorcycle racers to go.
Yet the one gets called outlandish and a troll. That's what I was criticizing.