Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum

[04102014]

Booooooooooring

[siredwrdross]

As a logic nerd who just got off of class doing polyadic predicate calculus with identity symbolizations exercises, I thoroughly enjoyed the logic discussion above. Quantifier negation for the win.

As an idiot, I understood every third word.

Every discipline needs its share of pedantic vocabulary.

Booooooooooring

Indeed

...where every word is at home,
Taking its place to support the others,
The word neither diffident nor ostentatious,
An easy commerce of the old a new,
The common word exact, without vulgarity,
The formal word precise, but not pedantic,
The complete consort dancing together.

[PRgradBYU]

Booooooooooring

Yep... *yawn*

Maybe tomorrow.

[LexLeon]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

To be fair, I think
Not all are: Some
All are not: None

So, I see the difference

Hah, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back any LSAT nightmares. But we're all done with it forever anyway, right?

"Not all are" doesn't imply "some"; for if none were--if there were not some that were--it would be correct to say "not all are."

[jselson]

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

To be fair, I think
Not all are: Some
All are not: None

So, I see the difference

Hah, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back any LSAT nightmares. But we're all done with it forever anyway, right?

"Not all are" doesn't imply "some"; for if none were--if there were not some that were--it would be correct to say "not all are."

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

[TripTrip]

Hah, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back any LSAT nightmares. But we're all done with it forever anyway, right?

Some of us liked it so much that now we make a living off of it.

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

"Not all are" and "All are not" are vastly different statements and definitely do not mean the same thing.

[domino]

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Disagree; "Not all are" is the negation of "All are" and it means "At least some are not," not "some are."

"All are not" is more restrictive.

If I imagine I'm picking 4 things and each thing is either A or B:

All are A's: AAAA is only choice
Not all are A's: BBBB would work, but so would BBBA, BBAA, BAAA.
Some are A's: BBBB does NOT work, but BBBA, BBAA, BAAA still work. AAAA DOES work.
All are not A's: BBBB is only choice

[wert3813]

Oh for fuck's sake

[domino]

Oh for fuck's sake

Sorry =P

[jbagelboy]

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Disagree; "Not all are" is the negation of "All are" and it means "At least some are not," not "some are."

"All are not" is more restrictive.

If I imagine I'm picking 4 things and each thing is either A or B:

All are A's: AAAA is only choice
Not all are A's: BBBB would work, but so would BBBA, BBAA, BAAA.
Some are A's: BBBB does NOT work, but BBBA, BBAA, BAAA still work. AAAA DOES work.
All are not A's: BBBB is only choice

180.

[PRgradBYU]

Oh for fuck's sake

See what all this waiting around is doing to everyone?

[TripTrip]

Oh for fuck's sake

Sorry =P

I'm not!

I think we should do some more LSAT prep. I'm contractually obligated not to participate in the LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum, but you guys don't count because you're unlikely to want to take the LSAT again.

[MacB]

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Shut... the fuck up. I'm serious. Shut up.

[jselson]

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Shut... the fuck up. I'm serious. Shut up.

Whoa, chill out, I'm not posting about it again.

[az21833]

this is what happens when the cream of the crop has already moved over to the IN AT HARVARD and HARVARD STUDENTS ANSWERING QUESTIONS threads.

lol, just kidding. mostly

[wannabelawstudent]

I leave this thread for a few days and it turns into an LSAT prep thread? Say it ain't so Harvard bros.

[wert3813]

read last years thread a few days ago and came across this:

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... start=4800

control+F for "accept for"


I thought, "Boy this thread sucks, I'm glad our thread would never do this." Nevermind.

[domino]

Oh for fuck's sake

Sorry =P

I'm not!

I think we should do some more LSAT prep. I'm contractually obligated not to participate in the LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum, but you guys don't count because you're unlikely to want to take the LSAT again.

Haha if only doing something productive and worthwhile just required you to take a series of logic-based tests. The world of A's and B's and not signs is a lot easier to understand than the real world.

[MacB]

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Shut... the fuck up. I'm serious. Shut up.

Whoa, chill out, I'm not posting about it again.

I'm sorry brahj, that was way too harsh. My bad, J. Just didn't want to go back down that road, regardless of who is right!!

[wannabelawstudent]

I hearby order this thread to immediately cease and desist posting anything in regards to semantics and order Audeamus to immediately post 3 pictures of his/her dog.

[04102014]

Is the admissions office open today?

[TripTrip]

Haha if only doing something productive and worthwhile just required you to take a series of logic-based tests. The world of A's and B's and not signs is a lot easier to understand than the real world.

+1

Can I just take the LSAT over and over instead of law school exams?

[PRgradBYU]

Is the admissions office open today?

Eff, it's Good Friday today. Didn't even think about that. I know a couple other admissions offices are closed.

[04102014]

They're open.

[jselson]

I hearby order this thread to immediately cease and desist posting anything in regards to semantics and order Audeamus to immediately post 3 pictures of his/her dog.

Let's make today Friday Furday. Here are my kittens: