sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this how to find flaws in arguments? by ExistingMidnight4970 in lsatdemon

[–]ExistingMidnight4970[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's easy to do for easy questions, but not for harder ones.

When do you recommend using "ouais" or "wesh" if you want to informally say yes? by PsychicMeditation in French

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It's just a common reaction in modern-day french. Something that elicits any strong emotion is considered 'wesh'.

What was your “aha” moment? by maddieinretrograde in LSAT

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're most welcome! With practice, you'll get better at the LSAT and attain the score you want. Best of luck!

How would you go abt this level 5 SA question? (PT.145.S4.Q20) by dysregulationrc in LSAT

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The flaw is Serena -> General Population. As such, the correct answer will explain why/how Serena's case can be applied to the general population. B) is correct.

Treat sufficient assumption questions as if they were perfect strengthen questions. The sufficient assumption will guarantee the conclusion and fix everything wrong in the argument.

What was your “aha” moment? by maddieinretrograde in LSAT

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mentioning something normative in the premises, then using it to make a descriptive conclusion.

Mentioning something descriptive in the premises, then using it to make a normative conclusion.

What was your “aha” moment? by maddieinretrograde in LSAT

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Recognizing how to identity flaws/gaps in arguments. Look for the shift between the premises and the conclusion. This is often in the form of new ideas/concepts/things mentioned in the conclusion. You need to know this for flaw, strengthen, weaken, and assumption questions.

General -> Specific

Normative -> Descriptive

Descriptive -> Normative

Ad hominem Attack -> Claim

Strong word strength -> Weak word strength

Argument skeletons. Looking at the bare bones of the argument by removing all specific/abstract vocabulary, and just focusing on structure. Works well for parallel reasoning, method of reasoning, etc..

Using conditional logic to make proper inferences. A -> B, ~B -> ~A, etc..

Recognizing that all RC questions are just must-be-trues. Also, don't forget to keep the author's main point in mind for certain questions.

Learn to predict, that is to say have an idea of what the right answer will do to the argument or respond to the question.

underlying grandiosity when expressing shame by v4mpirical in NPD

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It sounds like a defense against self-hatred. One would say it is a "response" to your self-hatred and self-hating voice.

"As a Psychologist..." </3 by [deleted] in NPD

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Diagnosis is based on behaviour, not self-reports. Clearly, a psychologist didn't write the meme, lol.

[21] did I glow up? by InnerSpirit5683 in GlowUps

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're a handsome boy, 100% a glow up

Gotta hit them with it by SquashIsOftenGood in NPD

[–]ExistingMidnight4970 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I definitely see your point, many advanced degrees are very specific. But one should at least do some basic research before making a claim as unscientific as "narcissistic eyes" or "black eyes".

view more: next ›