Negation Technique for Assumption Questions Forum

[3|ink]

Great retort. Check mate.

Wait. I'm new to the internet. Is my sarcasm showing?

When I said "modus tollens =/= negation", it was a statement of fact, but it was clearly missing the point of his argument that I didn't bother to read. However, since he's not familiar with TestMasters or their technique (or at least didn't claim to be), he can't know with certainty that the technique borrows 100% from Aristotle or other scholars of logic for that matter. Again, there's more to negating a statement than simply replacing "All" with "Some may not" or "None" with "some may".


I don't know the Greek word for "unless", but I think it's a fair guess to say that learning and teaching the logical properties of different languages is not exactly easy. I'm not for a moment suggesting that TM or PS did the translation. I'm simply stating that you can't trace all of the techniques or the structure of those techniques back to Aristotle. This, of course, is just one example of that kind of property.

[Unshake]

wow you're dumb.

+1. Why do you want any input if you're just going to debate things by making unwarranted insults and claims? It isn't a contest or a game that you 'check mated' them in, their responses seem reasonable enough especially for this forum. If by sarcasm you meant douche baggery, yes it's glaring.


Anyways, to get back on topic in response to your original post's

The negation technique does not help you understand what is going on in the stimulus. In fact, it requires that you already understand the conclusion and how the premises support it. All it really does is help you narrow down answer choices. However, I think that it is easy enough to narrow down answer choices once you understand what is going on in the stimulus. Thus, I think it's nothing more than extra legwork. I personally have never once found it useful. Does anyone else concur?

I don't entirely agree. Given I'm not testing at 180 or anything but I am testing around the 170 level with about a month of prep thus far. I'm using PS but have a friend taking TM and am somewhat familiar with their techniques. I agree that it is often unnecessary, but it generally helps me if I didn't entirely grasp the passage. Also, I've found that on harder questions sometimes its faster to use this technique to weed out wrong choices quickly and saves some time. Generally, I'll quickly scan it over on the choice I select if I'm not 100%, but it's not something I'd do for every question every time.

edited for misquote

[3|ink]

I don't entirely agree. Given I'm not testing at 180 or anything but I am testing around the 170 level with about a month of prep thus far. I'm using PS but have a friend taking TM and am somewhat familiar with their techniques. I agree that it is often unnecessary, but it generally helps me if I didn't entirely grasp the passage. Also, I've found that on harder questions sometimes its faster to use this technique to weed out wrong choices quickly and saves some time. Generally, I'll quickly scan it over on the choice I select if I'm not 100%, but it's not something I'd do for every question every time.

I ate my own words when I took a PT tonight. I actually negated one of the necessary assumption questions. It seemed to help that one time. Remarkably, it helped even though I didn't entirely understand what was going on in the stimulus.

I guess it can be helpful. I will conceed on that point.

[Nikrall]

Great retort. Check mate.

Wait. I'm new to the internet. Is my sarcasm showing?

When I said "modus tollens =/= negation", it was a statement of fact, but it was clearly missing the point of his argument that I didn't bother to read. However, since he's not familiar with TestMasters or their technique (or at least didn't claim to be), he can't know with certainty that the technique borrows 100% from Aristotle or other scholars of logic for that matter. Again, there's more to negating a statement than simply replacing "All" with "Some may not" or "None" with "some may".


I don't know the Greek word for "unless", but I think it's a fair guess to say that learning and teaching the logical properties of different languages is not exactly easy. I'm not for a moment suggesting that TM or PS did the translation. I'm simply stating that you can't trace all of the techniques or the structure of those techniques back to Aristotle. This, of course, is just one example of that kind of property.

No shit sherlock. You didn't bother to read something and responded idiotically. That tends to annoy people. Then you were a bitch to him, he was a bitch back (and then apologized), and then you threw the apology in his face.

Also:

Learn what a strawman is. You made one. Merely because you didn't stop and "declare victory" doesn't make what you said any less of a strawman.

My premises? Try not to be a complete and utter tool. Generally in normal conversation people don't state their assumptions. This is a simple argument about pretty simple shit, I'm not writing a treatise here. Stating my assumptions is unnecessary. (PS...YOU said the techniques were similar, dumbass). I quote:

I can't describe the technique on here without risking copyright infringement. However, if you've taken one of the above mentioned courses, I can tell you that it's the same for both under different names. For those who are familiar with the technique, don't you find it pointless?

Do tell exactly what argument I made was circular. Be specific.

I can decide what constitutes "little more" than logic without being a federal judge. Anyone with half a brain and a decent knowledge of logic can tell that, which are apparently faculties you seem to lack.

You do, I hope, know that there are many prominent logicians who did quite a lot of work in the past 100 years who were not Greek, who worked in English, and had nothing at all to do with the LSAT?

[3|ink]

No shit sherlock. You didn't bother to read something and responded idiotically. That tends to annoy people. Then you were a bitch to him, he was a bitch back (and then apologized), and then you threw the apology in his face.

Your sequencing of the events is off, but it doesn't matter. You emotional outbursts say enough to fill novels.

Also:

Learn what a strawman is. You made one. Merely because you didn't stop and "declare victory" doesn't make what you said any less of a strawman.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

My premises? Try not to be a complete and utter tool.

Certaintly not troll language or behavior.

Generally in normal conversation people don't state their assumptions. This is a simple argument about pretty simple shit, I'm not writing a treatise here. Stating my assumptions is unnecessary. (PS...YOU said the techniques were similar, dumbass).

But your so called 'obvious' assumptions are the point of contention. Moreover, I can't describe the process because you haven't really made an argument besides the case that you're an authority figure. Try not to get too upset.

Do tell exactly what argument I made was circular. Be specific.

I'm paraphrasing here, but you're saying that what I refer to as techniques for teaching logic are not protected under copyright law because it is apparently obvious. Please correct me if I’m misstating your position.

I can decide what constitutes "little more" than logic without being a federal judge. Anyone with half a brain and a decent knowledge of logic can tell that, which are apparently faculties you seem to lack.

They’re so obvious that reasons for their being obvious escape you?

If this were a point of contention question, what would be the credited response?

I think it would be “some methods of teaching logic or any subject with extensive historical background may be subject to protection under copyright law.

You do, I hope, know that there are many prominent logicians who did quite a lot of work in the past 100 years who were not Greek, who worked in English, and had nothing at all to do with the LSAT?

It would be a safe assumption. My point was that the concept as we recognize it cannot be traced back entirely to the Greeks.

[dub]

ITT: nerdfight

[3|ink]

ITT: nerdfight

Nerds are smart. I'm not a nerd. However, I won't accept all things I'm told without better reasons than provided.

I just let two people getting carried away carry me away. I don't mean to dismiss it as anything less than shameful by the word "just".

.

[Audio Technica Guy]

The thing about this whole horseshit of an argument is that regardless of how its taught, the negation technique is utterly, mind blowingly simple.

If something is a necessary assumption, it must be true in order for the argument to work. The negation technique is simply you asking yourself "does the argument fall apart if this isn't necessarily true?"

It is completely non-copyrightable, non-patentable and the names the companies use probably aren't even trademarkable. This is from someone who both teaches test prep for a company that uses this technique and has a law degree from a top 10 law school (yes, this is an argument from authority, but its better than what is currently going on in this thread).

[3|ink]

The thing about this whole horseshit of an argument is that regardless of how its taught, the negation technique is utterly, mind blowingly simple.

If something is a necessary assumption, it must be true in order for the argument to work. The negation technique is simply you asking yourself "does the argument fall apart if this isn't necessarily true?"

It is completely non-copyrightable, non-patentable and the names the companies use probably aren't even trademarkable. This is from someone who both teaches test prep for a company that uses this technique and has a law degree from a top 10 law school (yes, this is an argument from authority, but its better than what is currently going on in this thread).

TestMaster's name for the technique has a little "TM" next to it in their books. I wonder what that stands for.

This oversight certaintly doesn't harm the rest of your argument. I'm sure that anyone who graduates from a top 10 law school is a strong authority of copyright/trademark law.

[Audio Technica Guy]

TestMaster's name for the technique has a little "TM" next to it in their books. I wonder what that stands for.

LOL, it stands for "unregistered trademark", lots of things that have that sign wouldn't come anywhere remotely close to enforceable trademarks if it ever actually came up in a legal proceeding. Please do not talk about things you have no idea about. If they use the little tm, they are attempting to say they believe they have a common law trademark, which isn't registered. (registered trademarks get the r with the circle around it)

I can just as easily put a TM next to everything I say in all my posts, if it's found that i have established a brand with some saying I have posted, then it might be enforceable, but most likely it won't.

In like 95% of cases the little TM is basically the equivalent of those people who put security system signs in their front yard without actually having one. They're just hoping you see it and move along.

edit: also, the TM doesn't mean anything at all legally, you can just as easily have an unregistered trademark without it. Like a Band's name can be an unregistered, but enforceable trademark, even if they never used the little TM

[3|ink]

TestMaster's name for the technique has a little "TM" next to it in their books. I wonder what that stands for.

LOL, it stands for "unregistered trademark", lots of things that have that sign wouldn't come anywhere remotely close to enforceable trademarks if it ever actually came up in a legal proceeding. Please do not talk about things you have no idea about. If they use the little tm, they are attempting to say they believe they have a common law trademark, which isn't registered. (registered trademarks get the r with the circle around it)

I can just as easily put a TM next to everything I say in all my posts, if it's found that i have established a brand with some saying I have posted, then it might be enforceable, but most likely it won't.

In like 95% of cases the little TM is basically the equivalent of those people who put security system signs in their front yard without actually having one. They're just hoping you see it and move along.

edit: also, the TM doesn't mean anything at all legally, you can just as easily have an unregistered trademark without it. Like a Band's name can be an unregistered, but enforceable trademark, even if they never used the little TM

Wow. I was not aware of that. Thanks for providing a civil *cough* response. You must be very patient with your students.

[Audio Technica Guy]

additionally, the most hilarious aspect of all of this is that something being trademarked DOES NOT mean that you can't use it, it means that you can't use the term to refer to a different entity or product. For instance, even though LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admissions Council, all that means is that you can't create another test and then call it the LSAT. I can type the term LSAT 29837542908 times and they have no legal recourse.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Wow. I was not aware of that. Thanks for providing a civil *cough* response. You must be very patient with your students.

LOL, most of my students don't say snarky things like "I wonder what the little TM stands for?" And yes, if they are attempting to make someone else look stupid, I usually put it right back at them.

[Audio Technica Guy]

This oversight certaintly doesn't harm the rest of your argument. I'm sure that anyone who graduates from a top 10 law school is a strong authority of copyright/trademark law.

Moreso than someone who has said several demonstrably false things throughout the course of this thread and has never taken a course in IP.

If you had taken calc 3 and I had never taken high school algebra, I'd probably defer to you on matters of integration.

[sophia.olive]

Wait, wait, NO. All of you are wrong TM means TEXT MESSAGE.......

[3|ink]

additionally, the most hilarious aspect of all of this is that something being trademarked DOES NOT mean that you can't use it, it means that you can't use the term to refer to a different entity or product. For instance, even though LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admissions Council, all that means is that you can't create another test and then call it the LSAT. I can type the term LSAT 29837542908 times and they have no legal recourse.

Do you mean to say that you can't use the term to refer to a different entity or product within the same market? Or does the restriction really apply to all entities/products?

[3|ink]

Edit: This wouldn't do anyone any good.

[Audio Technica Guy]

additionally, the most hilarious aspect of all of this is that something being trademarked DOES NOT mean that you can't use it, it means that you can't use the term to refer to a different entity or product. For instance, even though LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admissions Council, all that means is that you can't create another test and then call it the LSAT. I can type the term LSAT 29837542908 times and they have no legal recourse.

Do you mean to say that you can't use the term to refer to a different entity or product within the same market? Or does the restriction really apply to all entities/products?

Technically it's within the same market, though the size of the market can vary wildly in both geographical area and range of products and entities it encompasses until sometimes it effectively means all products and entities. Like you probably couldn't get away with calling your shoe brand Microsoft.