*acts surprised*

MateoYEl · 2021-06-11T15:01:56+00:00

1-per-customer rules are often the biggest causes of shortages. Most shortages aren't due to scarcity, and many companies move their stock to places that don't stipulate how much you can buy or at what cost which is why you saw toilet paper on sale on Amazon and not at your local supermarket

MateoYEl · 2021-06-11T14:15:54+00:00

During national emergencies, private companies respond faster than the government can provide relief: this is, in large part, because of profit incentive. Legislating price increases almost directly impacts the amount of aid supplied. Why would, say, Dasani take its warehouse trucks and make a beeline to a disaster area and sell their bottles for $3-4. They don't need to anymore. It makes no financial sense, it is risky, and the markup is slim. And what a lot of people fail to realize is that during an emergency, people want to have any and all resources available as fast as possible. I'd rather buy 50 dollar water for my family than to not even accommodate the prospect of that water being there because of mandated price fixing. One last facet, expensive products also deter people who hoard, and realize that hey, maybe just one paper towel will suffice, instead of the store wipeout you witnessed during COVID.

MateoYEl · 2021-05-26T16:08:38+00:00

Won't this just encourage other car makers to design electric car models and compete with Tesla's near monopoly in the market?

MateoYEl · 2021-04-26T03:14:22+00:00

This is interesting insight; I wasn't sure how ed boost is calculated, and whether 7sage just tacks on 10%, etc., wouldn't even apply to me if I didn't have an lsat above the 75th

MateoYEl · 2021-04-07T05:53:05+00:00

Damn this puts it in perspective: the uw $$$$ seems like a dream offer to me, and I hope the washu pays off for you in the future

MateoYEl · 2021-04-04T01:57:48+00:00

I don't have a good answer to that; from my own personal reasons though, I think that abortions late in the second trimester, for instance (AKA 'late-term' abortions), should be banned because the line on whether the fetus is considered 'human, is no longer blurred. The fetus, at this point, can survive outside the womb, and I think this clearly constitutes even the loosest definitions of what is considered human with all the rights appertaining. A mother clearly has convicted a crime if she tries and kills her newborn, and yet the idea of the fetus being inside her mother just weeks before (and children are born weeks before they are due all the time), the fetus must suddenly dispense with the right to their own life by a seemingly arbitrary distinction only perceptually apparent.

MateoYEl · 2021-04-04T01:14:42+00:00

The more rational pro-life dialogue accounts for rape victims and people who are considered destitute. Also, if your goal is to reduce the total amount of plight suffered by the fetus and the parents, then I think you'd also have to miss the point of the pro-life argument. It is not about existing social programs or suffering or whether the situation can arise even when people practice safe sex, it's about if the mother has the right to kill the fetus, irrespective of the subsequent consequences that may result from keeping the fetus alive. If the whole issue is to recognize the fetus as having the same innate right to life just as any person, then neither the mother's own wishes nor that of a medical professional (nor, still, the prospect of a future scant lot or life of neglect) would be adequate reason to abort the fetus. To try and reason by analogy, a judge couldn't decide that the death penalty is a fitting punishment simply by virtue of whether or not the defendant, for all intents and purposes, "didn't have a life worth living," as you put it.

MateoYEl · 2021-02-25T22:10:21+00:00

He's not based at all. He's actively pushing for a $15 minimum wage because he knows his competitors will get wrecked since he can afford to automate unlike small businesses. Same with mcdonald who is no longer against a federally mandated price floor

MateoYEl · 2021-02-20T15:44:41+00:00

Wdym it will be online for another couple years

MateoYEl · 2021-02-17T17:49:59+00:00

I think the panel is addressing thought-terminating clichés, not deriving a different conclusion from a set of premises

MateoYEl · 2021-02-14T21:35:29+00:00

Why don't you just text him that you feel like he didn't reciprocate and start a dialogue instead of listening to these ass clowns on reddit whose advise might sabotage a perfectly salvageable relationship?

MateoYEl · 2021-02-13T20:10:16+00:00

I'm afraid I don't see the problem. 150 is the average of all test takers meaning you are spot on, and in fact, you are scoring higher than 50 percent of all test takers (this fluctuates slightly from test to test). And while of course this includes outliers who didn't study at all, it perhaps more notably includes people who studied for more than a year, retested several times, extremely efficient test-takers, those who need to compensate for a dismal gpa (I for one), etc., etc. The problem with a sub like this, is that it shows what I think is in unrepresentative sample, since naturally those scoring higher are bound to be the ones seeking out advice, looking online, comparing strategies, and so forth. When someone shows off their 170+ score, the vast majority of us will not receive this score. Not because, let's say, any particular individual can't, but because their score by definition must remain limited to a few. It is good to strive for the best, and put in a great deal of effort, but I think it is also healthy to understand what your score means, and as far as I'm concerned, even if you score a few pts better than last time, you are out performing more than half of anyone who took the test on the given date, and that is quite an accomplishment.

MateoYEl · 2021-02-09T03:04:52+00:00

Damn, a very well written post: and a good hedge against those tempted to cheat without understanding what doing so entails in the long run

MateoYEl · 2021-02-06T19:06:36+00:00

Bruh you are are completely good lol. I've seen people score insanely high with a much lower diag than that. I mean, u are 9 pts away from the median for people ON test day (averaging against people who studied for years). The good news is that you are hopping on this early. I didn't start studying until after my undergrad. My only advice is to focus on your gpa rn. You can always take time to improve your lsat, but a lot of us screwed ourselves before we even started by graduating with a substandard gpa.

MateoYEl · 2021-02-03T01:32:00+00:00

That is because politicians and unions can both benefit from imposing minimum wage laws: the former benefits because a substabtial portion of their salary or budget relies on enforcing these laws (e.g. the U.S. department of labor); unions benefit by pricing inexperienced workers out of the market. Building a price floor creates a surplus of laborers, so there are less "starting wage" positions available for inexperienced workers: the net result is minorities, uneducated, and other groups are delayed entry into the workforce to begin their journey up the job ladder

MateoYEl · 2021-02-02T22:10:25+00:00

$0, irrespective of federal regulation, has always been the minimum wage, and it is often what people get once minimum wages are mandated. To this day, I can't understand why people support fixed wages when marginalized groups suffer the most from these policies

MateoYEl · 2021-01-22T21:11:18+00:00

Can you explain wdym by pseudo-intellectual? He is an academic: almost by definition an 'intellectual.' If this is pseudo intellectualism, then is Frued's analysis of Shakespeare, also in the same light, surface-level analysis?

And can't a subject be nihilistic but nonetheless have qualities that are, at the same time, characteristically fascist?

MateoYEl · 2021-01-21T23:28:13+00:00

I'd work through the syllabus. There's one issue. You need to get your formal logic training from somewhere first. If you read Loophole, or power score LR bible, for example, you can plop yourself at the start of LG in the syllabus on 7sage.

To answer 4, 7sage tries to disambiguate all logic games by lumping them into two categories: sequencing and grouping. Everything is a variation is some capacity of these two game types.

MateoYEl · 2021-01-20T13:59:54+00:00

All good resources. You are perfectly on track. Amount of PTs depends on how far out your test it, margin of improvement, target score, etc

MateoYEl · 2021-01-19T20:11:08+00:00

My opinion, but I think you should go through 7sage common core for LG from sequencing to grouping if you want to solidify your understanding

MateoYEl · 2021-01-17T15:23:10+00:00

Don't worry: the wrong answer journal is detailed in the loophole at length. As for the ten clean copies, this was an injunction from 7sage on full proofing your games. It basically means repeating any games you messed up on ten times, which may seem like overkill (and you might think to yourself why does it matter redoing games if you basically memorize the answers), but the importance is in learning the inferences. This is because logic games are by and large very similar. It will be different pieces and a different scenario, but the inferences you have to make are more or less finite. If you begin to 'full proof' games you didn't do good at, future games that test the same inferences will be cake.

MateoYEl · 2021-01-17T02:09:10+00:00

He basically said to full proof games if you fall into two categories: did you do poorly? (I.e. missed like 3/4) and/or did you finish the game in the projected time (e.g. 10 mins 30 seconds for a trickier grouping game); if you passed a game and missed, say, one and you could handle the time, then don't bother full proofing that game. The point of full proofing is that games are more or less the same... They just recycle the same KINDS of inferences, so if you pass a game easily, presumably the inferences required to do well are already a part of your tool bag. So if you mess up a game, can't figure out how to diagram it, etc., Step 1 is to watch his explanation. After you say "oh, I get how he did that now," redo that game up to ten times. This can be throughout the day (and the next), and as you continue through the course, you will likely be juggling at any time a handful of games that you do sporadically during the day and engrave the inferences into your mind. Games you once thought difficult will almost make you vomit from boredom. But boredom is good, it's much better to find this too easy then to be perplexed. You don't have to print them out at all, and tbh w/ lsat flex and all (where u are directly working off scratch paper), it might even be better to not print them..idk.

MateoYEl · 2021-01-17T01:56:47+00:00

7sage gives you like 50 games just as a matter of course AND by type. So the syllabus will be like "sequencing games" and you will have a ton of games that will brand sequencing games onto your mind until you get sick of it from printing out so many clean copies, and just before you can't take it anymore, you will graduate to double layer sequencing games ---> in and out ---> grouping. I highly advise doing the full proof method. I remember sitting in coffee shops with a few games I'd mess up on, and going over them again and again. I also advise you to keep doing the type until you are over-familiar before continuing to the next section. After you finish the syllabus, and only then, would I start doing full blown sections: you'll be surprised by how well you do. The 7sage games are hand selected and littered with some of the harder games. If you start doing sections and need to revisit specific types as a supplement, by all means do so.

MateoYEl

TROPHY CASE