Page 1 of 2
LSAC f**ked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:52 pm
by I<3ScholarlySweets!
The stimulus—and the credited response—has the following structure:
A --> ~B
~B --> A
The question is a parallel question. But notice that the reasoning above is invalid (i.e. flawed). The question should be a parallel flaw question; not a parallel question.
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:55 pm
by BillsFan9907
No. Back then they didn't tell you if it was flawed or not (or didn't always tell you).
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:57 pm
by I<3ScholarlySweets!
By saying 'no' to the OP, you are committed to the position that "LSAC did not fuck up. The question is not inaccurate."
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:58 pm
by fats provolone
oh shit you're committed now! it's going on your permanent record
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:59 pm
by I<3ScholarlySweets!
Is fats provolone a literal retard? Sounds like it.
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:10 pm
by BillsFan9907
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:By saying 'no' to the OP, you are committed to the position that "LSAC did not fuck up. The question is not inaccurate."
Yes I am commited to that position.
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:18 pm
by I<3ScholarlySweets!
You must be too stupid to realize that said position is consistent with accepting the invalid (i.e. flawed) reasoning in the OP as valid reasoning.
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:18 pm
by stray
lol, here we go again.
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:22 pm
by fats provolone
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Please don't hate me for sounding sexist, pep, and I know I will get a lot of crap from the femposters here for this, but I think it may be different for me cause I'm a guy. Everyday I get older, I look better, physically. I also accumulate more money. I get more confident and experienced. But I can't fully enjoy life right now cause of certain limitations and because I know there is lots of progress to be made in my life. Men hit their peaks at a later age in their lives. All the women my age are dating older men. If I get married it would be to a 20 year old when I'm 40.
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:40 pm
by Nebby
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Hey guys, can we be honest&good ITT? no drama
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:43 pm
by Username123
lolz
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:56 pm
by hairbear7
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:By saying 'no' to the OP, you are committed to the position that "LSAC did not fuck up. The question is not inaccurate."
Hahaha wtf
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:57 pm
by ilikebaseball
I bet you he really thought this thread was a great idea
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:18 pm
by GreenTee
tagging for lols
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:29 pm
by Hand
fats provolone wrote:I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Please don't hate me for sounding sexist, pep, and I know I will get a lot of crap from the femposters here for this, but I think it may be different for me cause I'm a guy. Everyday I get older, I look better, physically. I also accumulate more money. I get more confident and experienced. But I can't fully enjoy life right now cause of certain limitations and because I know there is lots of progress to be made in my life. Men hit their peaks at a later age in their lives. All the women my age are dating older men. If I get married it would be to a 20 year old when I'm 40.
I think I just got a new favorite poster
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:31 pm
by Smallville
hereisonehand wrote:fats provolone wrote:I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Please don't hate me for sounding sexist, pep, and I know I will get a lot of crap from the femposters here for this, but I think it may be different for me cause I'm a guy. Everyday I get older, I look better, physically. I also accumulate more money. I get more confident and experienced. But I can't fully enjoy life right now cause of certain limitations and because I know there is lots of progress to be made in my life. Men hit their peaks at a later age in their lives. All the women my age are dating older men. If I get married it would be to a 20 year old when I'm 40.
I think I just got a new favorite poster
you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:32 pm
by Hand
Smallville wrote:hereisonehand wrote:
I think I just got a new favorite poster
you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together
Jtard did you change your username? Between you and seoulless both with new usernames this is really a massively confusing thread
but no I didn't know this fine specimen yet but I'll be sure to pay attention from here on out
ETA: I petitioned slack for a username change the other day as well but he was not having it unfortunately
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:38 pm
by Smallville
hereisonehand wrote:Smallville wrote:hereisonehand wrote:
I think I just got a new favorite poster
you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together
Jtard did you change your username? Between you and seoulless both with new usernames this is really a massively confusing thread
but no I didn't know this fine specimen yet but I'll be sure to pay attention from here on out
ETA: I petitioned slack for a username change the other day as well but he was not having it unfortunately
Well I did it for like real reasons... I feel like changing urs would be just for the heck of it or something
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:40 pm
by Hand
Smallville wrote:hereisonehand wrote:Smallville wrote:hereisonehand wrote:
I think I just got a new favorite poster
you didnt know about him hand? go through his posts... you two would be great together
Jtard did you change your username? Between you and seoulless both with new usernames this is really a massively confusing thread
but no I didn't know this fine specimen yet but I'll be sure to pay attention from here on out
ETA: I petitioned slack for a username change the other day as well but he was not having it unfortunately
Well I did it for like real reasons... I feel like changing urs would be just for the heck of it or something
I have real reasons as well! I mean unless you think that "it would be funny" is not a real reason to change my username to Seoulless
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:44 pm
by NonTradLawHopeful
The question is not inaccurate. LSAC presently deciding to give more information in a question stem is mutually exclusive to the amount of information they chose to give in past LSATs. The task is to find the parallel reasoning...congratulations on being smart enough to figure it out!
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:50 pm
by Smallville
hereisonehand wrote:
I have real reasons as well! I mean unless you think that "it would be funny" is not a real reason to change my username to Seoulless
touche
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:40 pm
by GreenTee
NonTradLawHopeful wrote:The question is not inaccurate. LSAC presently deciding to give more information in a question stem is mutually exclusive to the amount of information they chose to give in past LSATs. The task is to find the parallel reasoning...congratulations on being smart enough to figure it out!
A parallel flaw question is a type of parallel reasoning question.
/thread
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:45 pm
by fats provolone
GreenTee wrote:NonTradLawHopeful wrote:The question is not inaccurate. LSAC presently deciding to give more information in a question stem is mutually exclusive to the amount of information they chose to give in past LSATs. The task is to find the parallel reasoning...congratulations on being smart enough to figure it out!
A parallel flaw question is a type of parallel reasoning question.
/thread
you have now committed to disagreeing with the OP! tls is now an open capital entity!
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:03 am
by I<3ScholarlySweets!
Invalid statements cannot be considered reasoning alone--that is an abuse of language. If a statement is invalid, you must use "flawed" to modify "reasononing" which is equivalent to: "A statement that is invalid."
Re: LSAC fucked up on PT1-S3-Q2
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:11 am
by NonTradLawHopeful
I<3ScholarlySweets! wrote:Invalid statements cannot be considered reasoning alone--that is an abuse of language. If a statement is invalid, you must use "flawed" to modify "reasononing" which is equivalent to: "A statement that is invalid."
No you don't. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Parallel reasoning is parallel reasoning whether it is flawed or not.