Top Law Schools

Do all the stim in the parallel valid arguments? I know parallel flaws have flawed arguments. Thanks for the reply in advance.

God bless

AFAIK, yeah.

Must you really end every post with 'god bless'? Barf.

I know at one point they didn't always say "which of the following arguments displays the same flawed pattern," but I think they stopped using that trick

rinkrat19 wrote:Must you really end every post with 'god bless'? Barf.

rink, chill

rinkrat19 wrote:Must you really end every post with 'god bless'? Barf.

lol

rinkrat19 wrote:Must you really end every post with 'god bless'? Barf.

lol

God bless.

PT 31-3-18 is a parallel question stem that does not indicate that the stimulus is flawed when in fact it is.

I believe that may be the only time that has happened in the history of the test, but it has happened.

timmydoeslsat wrote:PT 31-3-18 is a parallel question stem that does not indicate that the stimulus is flawed when in fact it is.

I believe that may be the only time that has happened in the history of the test, but it has happened.

Timmy is that a self-tar?

It is. I originally had my ventriloquist doll on there but it scared some people.

timmydoeslsat wrote:It is. I originally had my ventriloquist doll on there but it scared some people.

It scared me for sure.

You user name, for some weird reason, makes me think that you're a little kid, which you're not. So I'm glad your avatar cleared that up. haha

timmydoeslsat wrote:It is. I originally had my ventriloquist doll on there but it scared some people.

I greatly enjoy your work on Mad Men.

timmydoeslsat wrote:It is. I originally had my ventriloquist doll on there but it scared some people.

I thought the ventriloquist doll was legit. Self tar is legit too tho...

Are you taking the LSAT anytime soon, Timmy??

timmydoeslsat wrote:PT 31-3-18 is a parallel question stem that does not indicate that the stimulus is flawed when in fact it is.

I believe that may be the only time that has happened in the history of the test, but it has happened.

Well, the intial chain of reasoning I think is meant to be (S>M>SU). S>M>SU ; SU>A; so, S>M>SU>A - logical.

I see what your saying though. Its silly to say since one consequence of doing science is arbitrary, then doing science is arbirary.

No doubt. The chain of logic looks good but the conclusion is too strong.

I will be taking the test in June.

timmydoeslsat wrote:No doubt. The chain of logic looks good but the conclusion is too strong.

I will be taking the test in June.

I've seen you all over the place, Timmy.

May I ask, what are your PTs looking like? You seem like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

nmop_apisdn wrote:

timmydoeslsat wrote:No doubt. The chain of logic looks good but the conclusion is too strong.

I will be taking the test in June.

I've seen you all over the place, Timmy.

May I ask, what are your PTs looking like? You seem like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I have been doing timed sections for the most part these past couple of months. I am going to take a PT I have never done before on Monday. I will let you know the results.

timmydoeslsat wrote:

nmop_apisdn wrote:

timmydoeslsat wrote:No doubt. The chain of logic looks good but the conclusion is too strong.

I will be taking the test in June.

I've seen you all over the place, Timmy.

May I ask, what are your PTs looking like? You seem like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I have been doing timed sections for the most part these past couple of months. I am going to take a PT I have never done before on Monday. I will let you know the results.

Sounds like a solid strategy. Seems like you've invested quite the time and energy into this test. I hope you do well my friend!

nmop_apisdn wrote:

timmydoeslsat wrote:

nmop_apisdn wrote:

timmydoeslsat wrote:No doubt. The chain of logic looks good but the conclusion is too strong.

I will be taking the test in June.

I've seen you all over the place, Timmy.

May I ask, what are your PTs looking like? You seem like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I have been doing timed sections for the most part these past couple of months. I am going to take a PT I have never done before on Monday. I will let you know the results.

Sounds like a solid strategy. Seems like you've invested quite the time and energy into this test. I hope you do well my friend!

+1

I didn't read much of the other advice, but the first few posts were wrong.

Parallel questions can be valid or invalid. The correct answer choice will match that validity (or invalidity).

Parallel flaw questions are always invalid.

Parallel questions have a higher burden for a correct answer - everything about the answer has to match the stimulus. Number of terms, transitivity, validity, quantification, logical force, etc...

Parallel flaw questions have a lower burden - only the flaw has to match up.

bp shinners wrote:I didn't read much of the other advice, but the first few posts were wrong.

Parallel questions can be valid or invalid. The correct answer choice will match that validity (or invalidity).

Parallel flaw questions are always invalid.

Parallel questions have a higher burden for a correct answer - everything about the answer has to match the stimulus. Number of terms, transitivity, validity, quantification, logical force, etc...

Parallel flaw questions have a lower burden - only the flaw has to match up.

BP, I think me and a few others made the mistake of equivocation - that is, equivocating valid with not flawed and invalid with flawed. As you know, these are two different things.

My bad! So yeah, parallel questions with a regular parallel stem (not indicating a flaw in reasoning) can be valid or invalid.

A parallel flaw will have a flaw that one must match to an answer choice with the same flaw and will definitely be invalid.
Also, I think we might be talking about something different than the OP - he's talking about vaild arguments, which I've never heard of.