Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
04102014
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 04102014 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:23 pm

Booooooooooring

User avatar
siredwrdross
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby siredwrdross » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:35 pm

TrustInMusic wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:
TrustInMusic wrote: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.


ohpobrecito wrote: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
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby PRgradBYU » Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:19 pm

ohpobrecito wrote:Booooooooooring


Yep... *yawn*

Maybe tomorrow.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby LexLeon » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:24 pm

Searchparty wrote:
MacB wrote:
jselson wrote:
MacB wrote: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. :P


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."

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jselson » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:48 pm

LexLeon wrote:
Searchparty wrote:
MacB wrote:
jselson wrote: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. :P


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.

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby TripTrip » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:52 pm

LexLeon wrote: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. :)

jselson wrote:"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.

User avatar
domino
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby domino » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:57 pm

jselson wrote:
"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

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby wert3813 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:58 pm

Oh for fuck's sake

User avatar
domino
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby domino » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:59 pm

wert3813 wrote:Oh for fuck's sake


Sorry =P

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9651
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:24 pm

domino wrote:
jselson wrote:
"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
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby PRgradBYU » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:27 pm

wert3813 wrote:Oh for fuck's sake


See what all this waiting around is doing to everyone?

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby TripTrip » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:06 am

domino wrote:
wert3813 wrote: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. :-P

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby MacB » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:23 am

jselson wrote:"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.

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jselson » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:39 am

MacB wrote:
jselson wrote:"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
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby az21833 » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:41 am

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
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby wannabelawstudent » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:29 am

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

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby wert3813 » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:41 am

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.

User avatar
domino
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby domino » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:13 am

TripTrip wrote:
domino wrote:
wert3813 wrote: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. :-P


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
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby MacB » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:24 am

jselson wrote:
MacB wrote:
jselson wrote:"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
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby wannabelawstudent » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:26 am

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
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 04102014 » Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:06 am

Is the admissions office open today?

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby TripTrip » Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:49 am

domino wrote: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
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby PRgradBYU » Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:33 am

ohpobrecito wrote: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
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 04102014 » Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:09 am

They're open.

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jselson » Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:50 am

wannabelawstudent wrote: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:

Image




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aquinas, BrainsyK, Christinabruin, dianersg, hoy456, kadams, lawschoolbound2017, MSNbot Media, ngmlsat, NotAGolfer, spursforever, ws120 and 52 guests