Logic thread

logic thread

D

B

2+2=4

E

C

This is great. Love it when the opinions differ. That means it should be material for discussion. Before I give the official answer why don't you debate why your answer is right, then I can also post "expert" explanations and we'll compare it to what you guys say.

It is B because the question is

which of the following is ASSUMED

So the statement

only things with nervous systems can experience pain

is logical only if it is ASSUMED that only organisms with nervous systems can experience pain.

An assumption is not a fact.

Clearly the proposed statement believes that only if you experience pain you can be mistreated.
They're saying mistreatment = pain.
So if you can't feel pain you can't be mistreated.
There is some people that can't feel pain.
I don't have full faith in my D choice since I don't think I've pinned down the point of the statement

Yeah well FUCK YOU NIGGER

Not true. Cause you can have a nervous system and not experience pain

If that were the case then the nervous system would be damaged and not functioning in some way. This is like saying you have a car when you have no wheels, no engine, no interior, and nothing but a metal frame.

A
D

It's B but some faggot will say it's D because B is the "premise" and D is the "conclusion".

There's no hard line between them, usually.

Mistreat

What is this spooky bullshit???

But who says mistreatment = pain.
I think that's subjective. If I bully someone into crying is that the same as stabbing them?
Wouldn't mistreat mean harm? You can harm a plant despite it not feeling pain

Of you put it that way I change my decision form D to B.
Reading comprehension sucks

Who says pain = pain?
Some get pleasure from pain.
The entire premise of the argument "ASSUMES" quite a bit and this thread is stupid.

I found these discussions and explanations online. Some of the posters there are instructors, who can make mistakes, other people there might be random people practicing, students etc. Also there is only one official answer, as in a letter, all these pages give the letter so I won't post it here so it's not a spoiler.

apollotestprep.com/apollo-explanations/2023/05/23/25-4-18-explanation

gmatclub.com/forum/obviously-we-cannot-in-any-real-sense-mistreat-plants-plants-do-not-321632.html

forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?f=630&t=5669

manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/-t4655.html

lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-25/logical-reasoning-2/q-18/

reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/1fky4dl/help_with_specific_practice_exam_question/

I think I'm throwing my support behind D. Here's my reasoning:

The statement implies in other words that we can't mistreat plants because they cannot experience pain. No nervous system -> No pain -> Can't be mistreated. For that argument to hold water, it must be assumed (or proven) that only organisms that experience pain can be mistreated. The difference between A and D is that A doesn't specify that organisms that don't experience pain can't be mistreated, but the original statement clearly says we can't mistreat plants because they cannot experience pain, therefore all organisms that don't experience pain must be able to be mistreated, which is what statement D says.

You're one of my favorite thread OPs
C. is not correct because claim C is already assumed in the first statement.
B. is not correct because it is the same answer as C. but is less specific, making it even more incorrect.
E. is incorrect because it says "any", implying that not ONLY organisms with a nervous system can be mistreated, which makes the first statement incorrect.
In disproving E we prove the answer is D.

It’s D.

It’s not B because we already know the information B gives us. The piece of information missing is the premise that we can only mistreat things that experience pain.

It's not D though because that is the conclusion
It says

The conclusion above is only true if which of the following is ASSUMED

so it is looking for the PREMISE of the argument which is located in B

I meant can only mistreat things that do not experience pain

all organisms that don't experience pain must NOT be able to be mistreated. Typo fix.

Also agree with the above poster, this is a great thread. Hoping for more like this in the future.

This isn't true, you're not looking for the premise, you're looking for the statement that would make the following original statement true. You're looking for the starting point from which the original statement can be derived, not the conclusion

I disagree because otherwise they would not include the words

the conclusion above

No because then at no point do you tie the link between experiencing pain and mistreatment. Yes we know that plants can’t experience pain, so what? Can I still mistreat them?

Right, it's asking you to pair an assumption (one of the choices below) to the conclusion (the original statement at the top of the image). So you're not looking to conclude anything. B is a conclusion, D is the right assumption which makes the conclusion true

Do WE know that? Or is it just assumed?

It's obviously D

You can write the first paragraph in logical form:

P1) Plants do not have nervous systems
P2) Having a nervous system is necessary to feel pain
C1) Therefore, plants cannot feel pain
P3) [hidden premise]
C2) Therefore, plants cannot be mistreated

The one premise that can logically link C1 with C2 is D

B is redundant because it was already stated in P2

But it doesn't mean that even if you have a nervous system, you can experience pain. It's just a requirement to have a nervous system in order to experience pain. It's like saying it's a requirement to have eyes so you can see, but it doesn't guarantee that the organism is able to have sight, i.e., blindness in deep sea fishes, they have eyes but it's useless.
It's A btw.

i was thinking of a question like this when i woke up.
when was the exact point we started ascribing 'souls/spirits' to only humans, i.e. those with consciousness/sentience?

China gets it

fuck these choices, im making my own. If any organism, either with or without a nervous system, that can be beneficiary for the survival for human or humans, then pain and mistreatment are disregarded.

plants don't have an animals' nervous system

that's kingdom.
obviously they respond to light, food, environment, even touch.

It isn't A because A leaves open the possibility of "An organism that can experience pain can't be mistreated", which makes the conclusion about plants impossible because some plants might be mistreated in a way that doesn't involve pain. It's only if you specify that the only way to be mistreated is to experience pain, that you can later conclude that plants can't be mistreated because they feel no pain.

Ya D take my word for it I'm a genius

When it says the conclusion follows logically they mean the conclusion, ie the first sentence, can be inferred from the premises, ie the second sentence, if which of the following statements is held as an assumption, ie is an unstated premise.

The question is not whether we know or only assume the stated premises. Rather assume in this context means "something held as true but not stated".

About assumptions:

yewtu.be/watch?v=yKwvZOj5I6g

The argument in the question is an example of an enthymeme, an argument with a hidden premise or hidden conclusion. But it's a bit complicated because really the argument is two arguments in one, an argument with an intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion.

premise 1 (stated): plants do not have nervous systems
premise 2 (stated): having a nervous system is necessary to feel pain
conclusion 1 (hidden): plants cannot feel pain

premise 3 (= conclusion 1): plants cannot feel pain
premise 4 (hidden): (this is the option we want)
conclusion 2 (stated): plants cannot be mistreated

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme

yewtu.be/watch?v=sgnYpzqFFdw

yewtu.be/playlist?list=PLeamyERJVQLDHH0zijOOpqULKD6yU2Uxe

lsatdemon.com/resources/logical-reasoning/argument-parts-and-indicators

usnews.com/education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/articles/how-to-identify-premises-conclusions-on-the-lsat

Conclusion 1 there is the intermediate conclusion and conclusion 2 is the main conclusion.

A isn't a useful premise because it says nothing about whether organisms that don't experience pain (which we're arguing applies to plants) can be mistreated.
if A, then B is not equivalent to B, only if A. For instance, C could also imply B. To give a more concrete example, a creature being a dog (A) implies that it has four legs (B). But a creature being a cat (C) also implies that it has four legs (B). So from the state of a creature having four legs (B) we cannot infer that it is only the case if being a dog (A) is true: that would be affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.

How can people possibly be saying B? You don’t have to assume B, it’s stated in the original thing??? You can’t mistreat plants because they can’t feel pain… this makes the assumption that the only possible form of mistreatment is pain… D!

A->B is not equivalent B iff A.
according to truth tables anyways.
the logical equivalent to A->B
is -A v B

the only time A->B is false is if B is false and A is true.
A iff B is false whenever theres differing truth values for A and B.

The difference between any and only is whether the statement is conditional (A) or biconditional (D).
Thus D is correct, because a conditional (A) can be true even if the first variable were false. A in other words:
Just because an organism cannot feel pain, does not mean it cannot be mistreated. I.e.

Meanwhile D results in pic rel, both variables are required to be equivalent for truth, which is what we need for the assumption to make sense.

i understodd it more in aristoelian terms.

saying Any organism that expierences pain can be mistreated.
it doesn't say anything about organisms that can't be mistreated only ones that can.

When it says "only" oganisms that can feel pain can be mistreated implies that organisms that can't feel pain can't be mistreated.
its more like set theory and venn diagrams.

if A, then B is not equivalent to B, only if A.

Yeah I meant:

if A, then B

and

A, only if B

are the same thing

Most people are so stupid it’s sad. I bet no one can get this one:

Conclusion:
All cats can breathe underwater.

Reasoning:
Only mammals can be cats and all mammals can fly.

Which assumption makes the conclusion true:
A) All cats are mammals
B) Only mammals produce milk
C) Any animal that can fly can breathe underwater.
D) Only animals which can fly have gills.
E) Anything that can fly is a mammal.

The question asks what assumption is needed to make the above statement be logically coherent. Under that criterion:
(A) is not sufficient, since you could still mistreat plants by means other than pain
(B) is already stated in the statement
(C) is a looser version of (B)
(D) is correct, since it's the missing link: organism needs nervous system to feel pain ∧ organism needs to feel pain to be mistreated => organism needs nervous system to be mistreated
(E) has the wrong quantifier or something

so (D) is the correct answer.

"only if" is not the same as "if and only if"

"if...then..." and "...only if..." are the same thing

forallx.openlogicproject.org/html/Ch5.html

khanacademy.org/test-prep/lsat-prep/xdf35b2883be7178a:lsat-prep-lessons/xdf35b2883be7178a:lsat-prep-logic-toolbox/a/logic-toolbox--if-and-only-if

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#:~:text="only if", equal to "if ... then"

Its good to see you again logic anon

Only mammals can be cats (so cats ⊂ mammals), so A) directly follows (and is thus not needed as an assumption)
All mammals can fly (=> all cats can fly)

So we need : all animals that can fly can breathe underwater, which is statement C).

Yes, you‘re right.
Venn diagrams and truth tables are just different ways of representing the same thing. Both are equally „aristotelean“, so to speak.
Conditional statements, for reference:

C

all those sources you cited say "if then" and "only if" are different.

Ok, you guys aren’t stupid. Hmm, I wonder if making the implications nonsensical in the real world actually makes the logic problem easier to solve because the subject matter becomes more abstract, leaving only the logic to think about.

stellar reading comprehension
"follows logically IF ... is assumed"
meaning "what should we assume for it to hold".

Yeah it's interesting. At first I thought there were a whole bunch of misunderstandings behind it, and there might be, but I think the main thing might be not knowing what assumption means in this context. It means something held as true but not stated in the argument. But those who say B think that the stated premises are assumptions, meaning held as true without proof. Two different meanings of the word "assumption", plus misunderstanding the task, and not knowing the structure of the whole thing. This is why I post this stuff, logic is not innate, it's learned, and it doesn't help that everyday English often is not very logical.

It is D because the point of the question is to make it so the second part of the statement supports the conclusion made in the first sentence.

t. LSAT 98th percentile

D
Easy.

I got my secret weapon. I’m almost finished with chapter 1.
Awesome book. Highly recommended. I’m no joke going to follow the recommendations of the Second Degree. My next endeavor will be grammar and then rhetoric.

Whole premise is flawed because as of this year there are numerous “studies” that indicate plant life experiences pain

Explanation:
It’s D because the assumption that allows the argument to function properly must associate the concept of mistreatment to the capacity to feel pain. “Only” is vital to the function of the argument because “any” does not necessarily preclude plants from this concept; and plants being used as the contrast, they must be excluded with the word “only” or an analog of it. “Any” leaves the argument open for further speculation. “Only” makes it airtight.

What do I win?

I think you're misusing the word "reasoning" there. Premises are not reasoning.

Precisely. And the Anglo says the Irish can’t reason. That’s solid state stuff there.

To me either word makes sense but ok.

I wonder who is the biggest genius on pol. I honestly would like to know. We have some impressive specimens.

Check this passage out from back when Jews defended the right to free speech. These words apply so appropriately to pol. Thank you Mr Rosenberg:

pic related

New question: (not trying to steal your thunder, Swede bro)

pic related

No, they don't. Picrel is from the first link.

D again. It's the only one that addresses the actual argument.

Full disclosure, I got this one right…and it’s actually fairly easy. The trick is, you’ve got to justify an intermediate conclusion that functions as support for the main conclusion.
No more hints.

Let me give others a chance at it before I share the correct answer.

C

What did you score? Im guessing around 175. I’m taking it in August. 175 is my goal. I hope to exceed it a bit.
Are you in law school now? If so, are you enjoying it?

Have you read the logic book I referred to here?
You will love this book. I’m kicking myself for not undertaking a serious study of logic many years ago. This is truly fascinating stuff.

I'll have a look at that book. I've been reading this:

forallx.openlogicproject.org

From what I understand in the classical education they studied/study it in this order: first grammar, then logic, and last rhetoric. And it was Latin and Greek. I don't know about Freemasons though. And I don't know if they actually study it in the second degree or if they are just informed about the importance of studying the seven liberal arts.

Ok D sounds pretty good too. (I said C first.) The spread of literacy is what leads to increased capacity to distinguish true reformers from opportunists, but only under the right circumstances. It’s implied that whatever a comprehensive system of education would do creates “the right circumstances,” but what is that? Instilling confidence in the current regime or teaching people to differentiate between authentic and inauthentic reformers?

Thats hilarious. Would you mind explaining to everyone here how all of these statements night lead to different conclusion?

No, I have not read that book.

Well I see where you're coming from but a thing I've seen over and over on here is people confusing reasoning with premises, a question will be about the reasoning, and people will erroneously address the premises rather than the reasoning, ie the inference of the conclusion from the premises.

Fair enough

Yes correct you're such a funny person hahaha. I choose any of these and they all lead to?

What if the genuine reformers want to topple the current regime, even though it’s relatively benign? If solid general education teaches them to differentiate true reformers from clever demagogues, the existing regime may still be toppled, but if the schools promote propaganda for the current regime which defines genuine vs inauthentic reformers by whether or not they support the current regime, then the regime is less likely to be toppled.

Not at the moment, but I scored a few points under that.

I think they just inform the candidate. I don’t think a thorough or even cursory study is done. But to me, the acknowledgement of their importance is the true secret we can ‘infer’ from the fluff of the ceremony.

The answer is indeed D. Way to redeem yourself.
I’m about to eat my hot wings. You guys keep this thread active. I’ll be back.

I was thinking B or D, but then went with D.

Swede, what's the answer? I saw D, chat gpt says B (i think it/s wrong). I'm dying to know now.

They also said and truly believed that infants up to 1 year didn't feel shit until they were 1 year old, up to the late 80s ffs. Thus isn't logical by far. And a developing baby in the womb also has a nervous system pretty early on, and fully developed in the 2nd trimester, yet they deny their ability to feel. Fuck these demons.

Anything alive can feel pain, and will move away from what ever source is causing it. With plants, they CANT fucking move.

obviously we cannot mistreat plants.

plants dont have nervous systems

having a nervous sytem is necessary to feel pain

So what is the premise that must exist to make this logical?

We sat plants cant be mistreated
We say plants cant feel pain

So the underlying premise has to be that you cant be mistreated if you cant feel pain.

It is easy to gloss over this because we assume that premise explicitly exisrs, but that us not how it works. It is implicit, and thus the answer is A.

D would work if you removed "and having a nervous system is necessary to feel pain."

But since that line is there, the whole prompt needs A.

Get Rekt Shitwits.

They all lead to the same conclusion.

Pipe down, you

Yet we've discovered plants "scream" in ultrasound when they are cut. And they have chemicals designed to prevent animals from eating them. One of which humans love dearly (capsasin). Anyway, it's still very much a living being that can detect harm and act to repair it, while also alerting it's fellows to harm.

So plants do in fact sense harm (much like how our bodies do automatically) and work to repair the harm. The requirement to have an electrical signal that says "THIS IS PAIN" seems to be unnecessary, especially since our sensors don't actually register PAIN vs NO PAIN, that shit is interpreted in the brain as harm/no harm. Plus, the idea pain is a criteria for determining mistreatment is dumb, since glitches in the nervous system can miss various types of harm, but that miss doesn't mean that the harm didn't exist for mistreatment to be considered.

This argument is fundamentally flawed, because it means I can apply pain killers to you, as a human, and torture you endlessly and it doesn't "count" as mistreatment because you have no pain sense. You are still mutilated at the end. Which we recognize as fundamentally wrong. The only reason we tolerate doctors doing it is because we know the harm is for the patient's life over the long run, so cutting them open or amputating rot off, while harmful, is ok because they get to live longer as a result.

D

I don't think so. I think A is certainly wrong for example. If you assume that "any organism that can experience pain can be mistreated" it does not follow that an organism that cannot experience pain cannot be mistreated. I think you need to assume some connection between pain and mistreatment, which leaves us with D and E. E is wrong

(F) Miss treatment =/= pain

I made the mistake of asking AI to help me study for the lsat. It gets a surprising amount of things very wrong. Further proof that AI can at best function as a paralegal and can never properly or reliably adjudicate the law. I was actually concerned about this before making the decision to go to law school. On a superficial level, law would seem a prime candidate for AI to take over. Far, far from it. Law is very safe from the encroachment of AI. But it will be great for research.

That’s not real, is it? Are we really able to construct on so infinitesimally small of a scale? That’s astonishing. That can’t be right.

Analyze the argument are among the toughest questions on the test. Here’s one if anyone wants to take a stab at it:

there was even more that could have been zoomed in on, the smallest stuff is on the micron scale which is near atomic

Actually that one isn’t tough at all. I was thinking of parallel argument questions..:which are quite difficult. I didn’t even have to think about that one. It was super easy.

Yes, denying the antecedent, has to do with necessity and sufficiency.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

E: can experience pain
M: can be mistreated

in the argument:
~E --> ~M

A) (denying the antecedent)
E --> M

D) (modus tollens)
M --> E

Yes but the volume of people going into it makes it that much harder to make anymore than a sales job unless you’re in like the top 5-10% nation wide.

How is that possible? I get the general gist of lithographs; but they still have to be etched on a template. This seems to defy reason. I can’t even imagine how this is done. No wonder the Chinese couldn’t figure out how to reverse engineer it. You’ve got to make sense of it first.

I think it is C, because she is not saying that marking posts will make driving harder or that it is not relevant, she is actually saying that making driving easier emboldens people to be more careless, so better roads will not lead to less accidents

yes indeed

How is that possible?

Shits as close to magic as I have ever seen. There is a reason only 1 or 2 locations on the entire planet can do the high end production. Even if the equipment was straight up given to china I don't think they could operate it without the people who know how to correctly operate it.

C

Fortunately, my current career is the type in which I can easily triple what I make per year with a law degree. Also, I definitely intend to be in the top 5 to 10%. The more I learn about law, the more convinced I am that it’s better to go to law school later in life with a lot of living experience under your belt. So much of law is derived from living itself. If I were fresh out of college, law would be a terrible field with fairly poor prospects. Age and experience give you a certain presence, horse sense and broad experience that the classroom can never rival. It’s something I on the one hand wish I’d done when I was younger, but I’m honestly glad it happened the way it did. I don’t think I’d have learned nearly as much and I’m certain I wouldn’t have made as good of use of it as I will now. The crazy thing is, the more I get into it, the more I love it…and I’m playing with the idea of giving up the big bucks to do something challenging that won’t pay nearly as much. It’s such a fascinating field of study.

Lmao to anyone not saying B. Remember these are the enlightened individuals who post on here

why do you choose b?
what's your career anon? i'm thinkin law school for myself

The main reason we disagree about word problems like this is definitional bias. I don't care what some schoolboy says, if a statement has multiple claims they're all arguments, one isn't a "given premise" and the others "derived conclusions". Therefore to me the most required lettered statement for the paragraph to be true is the right answer.

The definition of "assumed" here is also an issue. It's sloppily written, could mean "taken as fact" or "concluded without proof".

It is C. I don’t feel like that one needs much explanation. That one was super easy.
For anyone interested in the lsat, this book has been the best I’ve found so far.

manhattan prep

this thread is too high IQ for me
i can't tell the difference between A and D

I don't understand why you think B is right? Also, isn't that what assume generally means?

So if i feed you codeine sulphate i can rape you because you do not experience pain?
Stop rabi-ing, it’s halfwitted.

D

Definitely especially if you get a good scholarship I agree that’s it’s better to be more developed in your career I think that definitely will give you an edge.

LSAT

Testing your potential to be a lying weasel.

thanks
it's just a little puzzle

I totally get what you’re saying. When I took my diagnostic test before I started studying, I could not see how it was possible for there to be an objective criteria by which some of these questions could be evaluated. But I’m about 6 weeks into my study, and I can say for certain that there is in fact a very solid objective criteria for all of them. The best way is to study formal logic. All of this stuff is derived of formal logic. You can indeed make decent score just through solid common sense and sharp reading comprehension. But you won’t go much past 160 (the test goes to 180) without a decent understanding of formal logic.
My diagnostic was 158. I’m pretty positive I would score in the high 160s if I took it tomorrow. My goal is the mid 170s. Like with golf, the first improvement is significant and comes pretty quickly. Once you get over the mid 160s, every couple points higher requires a lot of work and study.

The issue is that you are seeing it as a word problem, when it's not. It's a logic problem.
One needs to assume that feeling pain is necessary for mistreatment, otherwise the logic doesn't follow.

B is the foundational fact which the other claims stem from.

And people were talking about "assume" itt. I took it to mean taken as a fact.

lol, but I’m an idiot who doesn’t care as much as I should about money. Watch me piss away a fortune by taking some low paying clerk position for a judge or something. I truly am getting obsessed with this stuff. It’s as if my particular aptitudes are perfectly suited for law.

D duh

Also logic tests like this are a far better test of intelligence than IQ tests

iirc i got 34 on ACt reading comp

I see what you mean, but I think this guy is right

A federal clerkship will open a lot of doors, just get good grades and you will do well.

One needs to assume that feeling pain is necessary for mistreatment

but why would you? It makes the whole premise false because it is false. Its not my fault the person who wrote it was illogical to begin with

assume here means "held as true but not stated"

yewtu.be/watch?v=yKwvZOj5I6g

So you got yet another lsat book since the last thread, your favorite then was the fox book.

see

If it's written sloppily that's not my fault. You're assuming things which aren't on the page. One of the claims is that nervous sytem is required. It's not separated from the rest.

checkmate vegan scum. guess you'll have to stick with algae paste

Also, I think I may be able to get a decent scholarship. I’m a veteran (with combat theater on my service record). Im also thinking about going ahead and claiming my disability. I don’t feel great about that…but, desu, I probably have some form of ptsd, and I know my hearing got fucked up while on all those helicopters. I bet if I get the kind of score I hope, I may be able to go to law school for free and get a stipend for living expenses. I may even try to go to a top law school. It’s fun to think about.

D - as someone who took the LSAT

You always need to read the question before the content in this section of the last. The question is asking for a rule, what here is not directly said, but needs to be true for everything above to be true. The answer is D.

Imagine applying logic instead of instantly divining the writer's intention

You guys need to be killed
Aktion T5: the sequel

Stupid people like this are the reason failure and problems exist

Literally every problem in society was caused by you mentally subhuman motherfuckers

If you don’t answer D, it’s of VITAL FUCKING IMPORTANCE for the survival of humanity that you are LOCKED INSIDE AN ACTIVE GAS CHAMBER or have your skull IMPROVED by the application of a SLEDGEHAMMER to your worthless brain

Yeah, I got this one after I finished the fox book. This book is like the best parts of the fox book with the best parts of the powerscore logic bible. It really drills down into the mechanics of logic very well. lol. I’m surprised you remember.

I wish I could do that, but I like passing my last semester of law school.

Because it's a question on logic and an IQ filter. It's not a question on the ethics of torture.
No, it's actually written very well. You've essentially focused on the "assumption" rather than reading the whole question.

That’s what this manhattan book suggests. They firmly assert that you should read the question stem before the stimulus. It actually makes a lot of sense. And once you’re able to guess the answer before you start looking through the choices, the test gets fairly easy. I was able to guess the answer in OPs question before I saw it.

And rocks 'scream' when subjected to shearing force.

I have read a few pages myself of the manhattan prep book, pdf I got online, not the best formatting in that pdf, I'm sure the physical book looks better.

Lmfao!

You too
You all need to be executed you are a danger to everyone

It's not D though because

Shut the FUCK up retard
How DARE you have the fucking NERVE to think that YOU, out of everyone here, has the RIGHT to open your mouth?

It can’t be the first time your brain has failed you, you’re far too stupid for this. Yet you still fucking DARE to spread misinformation even though you must surely know that your brain is NOT reliable?

My brain is reliable, I have never made an error in my life, either your brain works, 100% of the time, either it doesn’t, it’s a binary property. If your brain isn’t 100% reliable, you know you can’t trust it, so how the fuck are you so vile and irresponsible as to open your mouth? I only allow myself to talk because I know my brain makes no mistakes, if I had been wrong about ANYTHING a single time in my life, I would know my place and stay SILENT

You are not only subhuman because your brain is incapable of coherent thoughts or correct logic, you are ALSO subhuman in the way you do irresponsibly and carelessly spread incorrect information with confidence

Disgusting swine
Enemy of humanity!

It's not a question on the ethics of torture

its not ethics. Its a consideration of definition. Words matter.

I was able to find a mint condition book the lsac will not allow any more printings of. They even banned the pdfs of it for some reason. This was the only copy I found online and I had to hunt a lot for it. I have no idea why they banned it so aggressively.

D: Mistreatment must be defined as pain in order for the conclusion that mistreatment cannot exist without a nervous system capable of feeling pain. If killing a plant is defined as mistreatment without the plant feeling any pain then the conclusion falls apart.

"All" or "Any" organisms capable of feeling pain being capable of mistreatment isn't necessary for the conclusion so A, C, and E are out.

Nervous systems being necessary for pain seems a necessary assumption; but we're only talking about plants not theoretical organisms so B is also out.

B is the trap answer. It would be the correct answer if the QUESTION WAS DIFFERENT. Like if it was "If the above is true, what else has to be true?"

What's being asked by the question here is DIFFERENT, it's asking you to assume a rule it has not given you.

Hope this helps

Hey friend, if you plan on taking the LSAT in the near future. I would really recommend using 7Sage. It was the biggest help for me.

Prep books are great, but taking past LSAT exams is the best way to prepare IMO.

could you get us a pdf anon?

So regarding A and D, there was talk earlier about inclusive vs exclusive, the logical terms are necessity and sufficiency, the problem with A is it's confusing necessity and sufficiency, as I said here: youtu.be/lyHk1qwl0JI&t=342

Ya D take my word for it I'm a genius

lmao every truly smart person is like this, if you’re a genius
...You fucking know it.

I wonder who is the biggest genius on pol. I honestly would like to know. We have some impressive specimens.

As far as I know I’m potentially the smartest person to ever exist so following that line of thought that would be me

Anyways I deeply look forward to anyone challenging my title in the most unforgiving way possible today

Anon Babble is the only place where I have found a non 0 number of 150+ iq people, that’s one of the main reasons I come here, so many -less stupid- people than elsewhere

Are you attending a T-14 program? I have two dream schools in mind. But my local state actually has a really good program. I mainly want the top schools so I can learn from and argue with the best. Have you enjoyed law school?

Likely a copyright issue. LSAT prep is a big business.

bitch needs to eat a sammich

i see, makes sense

No, it's actually written very well. You've essentially focused on the "assumption" rather than reading the whole question.

You can keep saying it, but the chain goes

B is fact

Author claims B (An argument, which is accurate if B is accurate)

Other conclusions derived from B, like D

Shit word problem.

how would you run your country, mandatory iq tests?

NDLS, law school has been alright, but frankly I found the study to be kind of boring. I can't really stand sitting in a classroom. My only advice is if you actually want to learn to advocate, do all the clinics and certified internships you can (one's where you're able to represent clients in court as a student).

I do plan on doing 7sage. It’s highly recommended by lots of people. I’m not quite 6 weeks into my study. And being a Gen Xer, I’m just so much more comfortable with books and physical paper when learning. So, I figured I’d get my legs under me with the books then transfer to 7sage. I have one more book after the Manhattan prep, then I start going online. Have you heard anything good about “The lsat loophole”? I’m not sure if it will be needed after these three books. But one thing I kept reading about it that piqued my interest was the enhanced reading skills it promotes. There’s some method by which you carve out the fluff in each passage and strip the stimulus to its essentials. That does seem useful. I’m pissed they took away the logic games. That shit is easy as pie for me.

No, A is denying the antecedent. If a statement is "if P, then Q" then you can never infer "if not P, then not Q" from that, that's the relationship between A and the argument. see

So the underlying premise has to be that you cant be mistreated if you cant feel pain.

Now read D again

A says that things that can feel pain can be mistreated
You need a statement that says that for something to be mistreatable it needs to be pain capable

Saying that you can mistreat everything that feels pain does not make the statement that only what feels pain can be mistreated true

It’s fascinating you came to the correct conclusion then your brain broke down trying to read the sentences

Sorry, you said B. Time for me to go to bed.

It's B you cross-eyed hillbillies

Somebody fetch my beatin' stick

you're not good at the LSAT lol
D

I guess I could do that. It will take some time, as I’ll have to scan every page. But I’d do that for pol. So long as Swedebro keeps making these threads, I’ll be reminded. This is a bad week though. I’ve got to take an insurance exam for another state this week, so I’ll be busy. Maybe a good project for next week. But you can’t share it with anyone from Reddit. lol.

It sounds familiar but I've never used it. And once you get into law school absolutely no one talks about the LSAT anymore, so I don't really have any info from anyone else that I could provide. :(

I have no idea why they banned it so aggressively.

Post modernist academia have been assaulting logic and objectivity for the past 30 years.

I remember reading a book in Political Science by a fruitcake named Iris Marion Young who argued that logic and objectivity were white male concepts that disenfranchised the feelings of women and minorities.

Seems you’re the idiot. B isn’t even the second best answer. The French anon above was right about you people. You probably do need to be euthanized. Maybe we can find you a slot in the salt mines.

I just started LSAT study after 10 years of software engineering. Still collecting $250k remote but want something else for rest of life; figured a law degree debt free would be aight for independent professional work.

Got a 160 on my cold diagnostic lel

Do patent work, you'll have a very chill job and still make loads.

based thanks anon. good luck

Redpill me on LSAT... is it worth taking and can I self study a law degree???

Actually, upon further consideration I change my answer to D

But I still feel entitled to employ my beatin' stick, just for the exercise

You have to take it if you want to get into law school. There are schools that will accept the GRE, but it's much less common.

You have to attend law school to be admitted to the bar in pretty much every state except California, where you can instead take the baby bar through an apprenticeship.

Now if you mean self study as in go at your own pace. I stopped reading my casebook 1L fall. I pretty much retaught myself all the content before each exam. That's my version of self-studying.

Don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer or you will hate your life (like me)

I have a nervous system but at certain times and in certain states I don't experience any pain at all. Even if my body reacts as if it's experiencing pain it doesn't arise as a mental experience for me. In order for an organism to be mistreated it needs to have more than pain receptors, it needs to be capable of achieving mental states where it can experience suffering.

If you bring in your own personal experience and are going outside of the question you are wrong. Answer the question with what is given.

Yeah I have a pretty good score on paper but the more I think about it it is probably better to gain more work experience before committing three years of time you could be making money. Most people go into it as young people and want to slave away at some law firm for the high salary and big city life or whatever but the better move seems to be to gain skills and work experience and most importantly money then get into a good program and use the Law degree to add onto your current skill set as an independent operator.

Certainly. They actually do have a point. Mathematics is profoundly racist and sexist without even trying. I say we just embrace all these criticisms. For though they intend their positions to be critical, they are in truth overhanded compliments.

why yes, I do excel in all the most racist and sexist fields of study…math, physics, logic, philosophy, law, language, hygiene, morality.

They’ve honestly made it such that being “racist” or “sexist” (according to contemporary usage) is high flattery. I say that unironically. It’s as if these arguments are formed as an excuse for rank ignorance and/or stupidity. I especially love the argument that IQ is a racist test. lol!

Analyze the argument are among the toughest questions on the test.

HOW IS THIS FUCKING HARD

I was expecting the question to be to notice that Adam failed to say that a clearer view decreased argument or some compound of that with something Aisha said to make the answer more complex

Instead it’s like the IQ test questions meant to weed out the illiterate baboons that score 70

Now as for the answer it’s...
None of them feel perfectly right but I assume they want to hear E as the answer
It’s very poorly worded

Technically correct but not necessarily correct
It’s the only answer that is technically correct so I would go with that

(She is saying other factors increase the number of accidents, E is true because she used the word "not necessarily", so E is technically correct even though she hasn’t proven her thesis, for E without the "not necessarily" to be true she would need to prove that the other factors she mentions outweigh the accident rate diminution from what Adam mentioned)

Anyways it wasn’t hard at all just weirdly phrased

HOWEVER anyone who fails any logic test question(that was properly made ie doesn’t contain any logic error in the question itself) should be BARRED FROM VOTING as well as having any rights of FREEDOM OF THOUGHT REVOKED

The fact a talking beast who is CAPABLE of making logical mistake is allowed to make decisions about how things are done is why we are into this mess

Whoops, I posted my response to myself by accident

hyuk

It’s E. The answer D is a test for midwitism

Good luck, my friend. I’m in a very similar situation. I make about the same. But something about law is so enthralling for me. It’s as if it demands equal effort from both hemispheres of the brain in synthesized harmony. I don’t see myself ever getting bored with it. Boredom is, as Kierkegaard famously said, the root of all evil.
The irony is, I made the decision to go to law school to enhance my earnings as a complement to my current profession; but now I find myself daydreaming about doing super complex litigation.

This is what I’m set up to do. I’m very confident I can easily make 500K my first year out…if, that is, I stay in my current field. It makes all the difference in the world.

how would you run your country, mandatory iq tests?

Will*

Hard to say, pragmatism takes prescedent over idealism, so I will do whatever I can get away with doing, but generally the goal would be to maximise the quality of the decision making in as wide a manner as possible

Competency everywhere it can be with no regards to morality as to how this is achieved, only results
I don’t care if I need to kill every single person in the country and replace everyone with genetically engineered superior replacements, if it would have a strong positive benefit to how capable the nation is when judged as a superorganism aimed with maximising its survival and power, I would do it without a second thought

Evolution is eternal, nothing escapes natural selection and human societies are not good enough, especially if aliens show up, we are catastrophically weak and inefficient

Do you know fallout new Vegas? I am reminded of an argument people made, saying that in the long run, the NCR could be easily infiltrated by legion spies who have the discipline and determination to not only extract intel, but also rise through the ranks and even become its leaders.

This is social Darwinism applied to civilisations. Look at the third French Republic and nazi germany. Nazi germany and the USA. Look at the people who control the society you live in and how their morals differ from everyone else.

If you’re not at the bleeding edge of Darwinian fitness you are at risk, and humans, as societies, are so so far from our potential. I live in a joke of a country that almost any threat could wipe away from history. It has so many critical failure points that have and continue to create ongoing catastrophes. Everything needs to be changed. That’s my answer.

Its more insidious than that though. When they assault logic as being racist or sexist its not just recognizing that men, whites and asians are better at it.

Its that they think things that aren't logical can be true. As if a white man demonstrating a reasoned scientific explanation is somehow on the same level as a black woman just feeling really strongly that he's wrong. An assault on logic is an assault on truth, on objective reality and when you cut down that center support pillar everything built on it falls off and pretty soon you're saying that trans women are real women.

Read my follow up posts. I had it confused with another question type. Yes, you are right. That one was super easy. I don’t cheat and do the question first. I waited until I posted it before giving it a try to make it fair as possible. So, I agree with you.

Yes but the volume of people going into it makes it that much harder to make anymore than a sales job

where are you getting that idea?
Even if it were true, you get to earn that sales income via...not sales, so that's a win

See the reason you think it's shit, and a word problem, is because you don't actually understand the question. It's not asking what information in the statement are assumptions, but what assumptions need to be made for the logical argument to follow.
And the argument is:
Feeling pain is necessary for torture. Plants don't feel pain. Because plants don't have a nervous system.
Needing a nervous system to feel pain is information given in the statement. But you need the assumption that pain is needed for mistreatment otherwise the logical argument isn't present, as a step is missing.

Well stated. You know, that’s one of the things I love about Asians. They’re not intimidated by us and therefore don’t want us dead. If anything, they seem to be like us in that they cherish excellence and like us being around…they understand the symbiotic relationship excellence has with other forms of the same. They know we keep them sharp and they us. Like the Bible says

iron sharpeneth iron

But I’m about 6 weeks into my study, and I can say for certain that there is in fact a very solid objective criteria for all of them.

how are you studying? any particular materials you like?

I just got a 156 doing exactly that: common sense and sharp reading from 10 years of tech work. (would be a 160 if the 2nd unscored reading comp was my scored one; I think I got warmed up and the humanities passage didn't kill me like RC 1).

I mentioned this above, but based on your current status, I wanted to make sure you were aware of it. I’ve just started working my way through it, but this book (pic related) will be of immense value in your studies.

I got it used in like new condition for like $6. I really can’t overstate the importance of this book for everything in the last.

(you)

Yes, you are right.

(you)

The French anon above was right about you people.

Story of my fucking life
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(metaphor)

I’m not joking or lying or exaggerating when I say I have never been wrong about anything in my life, as far as I know I am the apex of computing machines, I can pretty much solve any problem in seconds without any error, and I’m just slowly getting more and more frustrated, nearly passing out levels of frustration after being alive for a few years

I know that the best I can do is exploit my gift for personal benefit and try to gain all the power I can so that I can overrule imbeciles, but that requires constantly being manipulative and wearing different masks, and Anon Babble is the one place I where I can vent about the unimaginable level of frustration or feeling like your the only human in a planet of apes, while having to constantly lie and manipulate said apes so that anything positive might happen, and so that they don’t tear me apart for their built in evolutionary mechanisms such as hating anyone they perceive as smarter, hating anyone that makes them feel insecure or inferior, doubling down on their own incorrect beliefs, trying to destroy people who disagree with them even if they’re wrong...
It’s all so tiresome

I need a better venting mechanism

Do patent work, you'll have a very chill job and still make loads.

I'll admit that I'm not drawn to it (moreso neutral as I don't know what it involves and sounds boring af on the surface).

I would go in with an open mind though and my journey is very early.

What makes patent work chill? How much is loads? Is patent work done as an independent professional or in-house?

I see myself more as a solo office independent professional in divorce, family, crim defense, maybe immigration (open up a bangkok office??) . I want off the agile treadmill and away from project/product/people/gay sex managers

Story of my fucking life

I’m not joking or lying or exaggerating when I say I have never been wrong about anything in my life,

you were wrong in forgetting a period in the first sentence retard

Reminder that the Answer is B.
D requires on a specialized definition of "assumption" that only applies to questions of logic but B is the more correct answer because when using the common every day definition of "assumption" it better answers the question.

The only people who would argue otherwise are actual retards and those who sniff their own farts and call their cigarettes "fags" using the ancient definition of "fag" instead of the more common modernly used definition.

My diagnostic was 158.

What, IQ or some American academic test?

You're still not including the claim that a nervous system is required for pain--which is in the author's statement, as part of "The conclusion above". I am, because that's the most literal way to read it. I dgaf if that's not the "conventional" way to read the problem, and you can gfys if you want to claim rules that aren't there should be followed.

pic unrel

It’s as if it demands equal effort from both hemispheres of the brain in synthesized harmony.

ya I think law creates much more balanced people than tech work. you can see it in the way they present almost immediately

I started with the Powerscore logical reasoning bible. Then I did the Nathan Fox’s Logical Reasoning encyclopedia. Now I’m studying both the logic textbook I showed you above and The Manhattan Prep Logical reasoning. I would say probably skip the powerscore (unless you struggle with basic concepts).
I would honestly do the following:
Start with the manhattan. Do about half of it…or enough of it to where you will understand how valuable the formal logic textbook is. Then finish the Manhattan book (redo the parts you did before the logic textbook). Then do the Nathan fox book. I would also do several sections of actual tests from time to time to keep your thinking flexible.
My next step is to do the 7sage online.
As for the logic textbook, I’m not sure you really need to do the whole thing. It looks like only the first two sections will be applicable to the lsat.
It’s honestly fun to study for this test if you have a certain type of mind. I’m no joke going to miss it when it’s done.

really can’t overstate the importance of this book for everything in the last.

thanks for the recommendation. I'll check this out and see if it has a latest edition

Yes because ponctuation is high up the list of my priorities lmfao

My brain pretty much outputs a constant string of text without any interruption, I hate regular human grammar, if I talk in an optimal way I just write using the minimal number of words, in several languages at once, with logic symbols, no punctuation and while inventing words

I don’t have any consideration for your preferred grammatical norms let alone fucking punctuation

Anyways, it’s clear you’re trying to get at me. That’s good, that’s what I want.

I’m presumptuous.
I’m rude.
I want you to teach me a lesson
I want you to PUT ME IN MY PLACE
I want you to HUMBLE ME

CHALLENGE.
ME.

Or submit utterly and learn your fucking place

From what I’ve learned, people who excel at coding and programming do very well on the lsat and in law school. Which makes perfect sense, especially if they have strong language skills that they otherwise don’t get much use of in computer. That’s what’s so exciting about all this stuff. I’m thrilled at the prospect of spending my days studying law and arguing it with other sharp minds. I feel like I’m going to really enjoy every phase — from the lsat, to school and especially the practice of law. Because, in addition to everything else, I’m insanely competitive. So much so, it’s embarrassing. I’m the guy who will stay up until 4am to make sure I beat you at Risk or whatever. And law is one of those unique fields that actually rewards that impulse.

Moral Spook
I reject the question

No, the lsat. You do a beginner “diagnostic test” to show you what you need to focus on in your studies. I had my iq tested in my early 20s. It was higher than that.

D

A is not the answer since it does not exclude organism that do not experience pain from being mistreated. You could still theoretically mistreat plants.
B is a restatement of the antecedent logic
C is a less stringent restatement of the antecedent logic
E is not the answer since it does not exclude organisms that do not have nervous systems. You could still theoretically mistreat plants.
does not comment on plants.

You are the one making ridiculous claims of never being wrong. While not even having the brains to use proper grammar. Don't get butthurt when you are proved wrong immediately.

I don’t get it is it supposed to teach logic?

Logic builds itself you know logic by thinking about it not learning about it, I would not put much faith in someone who needs to be taught logic and can’t derive it himself, logic is one of the first things I mastered as a toddler, and I remember how underdeveloped my brain was back then

I kind of am incredulous to the idea you can even learn logic and have satisfactory result, everything within logic is self evident for a lack of a better term, and it’s not just our brains being built to perform logic though j believe that’s also the case, rather, the laws of our universe necessarily create the laws of logic from things like causality which serve as the basis of logic (if, then)

That’s one of the interesting things about the test. Many of the questions are premised on divisive and politically charged subjects. I’m guess that’s to both throw you off balance and temp you into bringing your own biases into the evaluation of the question and answers. If so, it’s quite effective. I always have to divest my mind of such biases whenever a question about global warming appears. It’s tougher than you think. It does, however, help you see just how strong your biases are and how they influence your mediation of basic information.

What, IQ or some American academic test?

LSAT
law school admissions test
i.e. the test that OP's question is pulled from

In your studies I recommend you focus on NETWORK lol

You’re better off trying to get in the social circles of the White House like a foreign spy would than you are studying any field

At least in France all study stuff is based on memorisation, absolute garbage, you just learn tons of usually useless info, and spew it out in the test, and you get perfect grades... if you can get away with cheating, do

you have to be 18 to post here kiddo

What is Pain?
And Mis-treated according to wich Life Book that sets the rules for reality?
Not enough data to have a sure answer.
And that goes basically for everything.
Humans can live only if they trace a square around stuff they know and pretend what's left outside does not exist or isn't relevant to validate the in-squared axioms.
We play, but we just act like it's serious business.

Just because your experience in life is so far removed from acceptable standards that never being wrong about anything is unthinkable to you doesn’t make this argument of personal incredulity valuable or worth wasting anyone’s time with

Maybe a thought experiment could work. Imagine there was a being who never made any mistake. Who was always right. And that being lived on earth. Near humans. Who almost always are wrong about everything.

How
Would
That
Being
Feel
About
Humans?

Sophistry. There's only the process, the end result, and then the maintaince. Most things should be done traditionally simply because of the precedent set, and change should be slow but measured. There's just too many chaotic retards in the way.

This
Also OP is a retarded nigger who always spams these retarded nigger threads and niggers keep bumping it while arguing about stupid shit.
NB

business law so you can draft up your own llcs and 501c3's
property and real estate laws to get a peice of the real estate pie.

No, it doesn’t teach logic; it instead utilizes logical principles. You don’t have to study logic to get a good score, but it makes it much easier and you’re able to apply a holistic approach to each question. The method they teach is somewhat asinine in comparison. They basically teach you (in the lsat books) to learn each question type (there are 13 types), master the mechanics of each type; then learn the tricks they use to decieve you with each respective type.
I’ve found it’s MUCH easier to just learn logic itself.

Based on what I’ve read in your comments, I think you might like this stuff a lot.

But you are correct about the study of logic. Granted, I just started studying it..:but I’m kicking myself for not studying logic when I was way younger. That’s one of the pitfalls of a high IQ. There’s a certain conceit that attends the gift…in this case, I always figured I was super logical because I could figure things out very easily. But logic is not what I supposed it to be.

Sounds like an absolute nightmare

Law especially is I assume in large part about knowing legal code, or if it’s for entry maybe a preliminary knowledge check

Aka just learning tons of frankly parasitic data just to play into this dumb game set up by a dumb person who had dumb little theories about what would accomplish whichever preoccupation they had in mind when coming up with the admission protocol they ended up with

Also it sounds to me like you study law to do law, sounds like hell to me, spending your whole life seing how a civil case compares to a legal code.... hope you’re cut out for it

D is correct.

Here is why

obviously we cannot mistreat plants

This is the conclusion. This is what is hanging on the assumption

plants do not have a nervous system

having a nervous system is necessary to experience pain

This only matters if it's the assumption that the conclusion is hanging on. Therefore D, only organisms that can experience pain can be mistreated.

those are all premises geniuses. the conclusion is at the top. multiple premises can be wrong.

(F): I challenge the author's assumption that mistreatment requires pain.

OK, Cassandra
Kek troon

Null.
Plants release distress supstances when injured. The author of the statement is an imbecile, and as such deserves no consideration.

Yeah, well, that’s a perfect example of why our Anglo common law system is so vastly superior to the Gallic civil law system. I’m a huge fan of napoleon…don’t get me wrong. But the common law system is the gold standard. And in our system, wisdom trumps knowledge. It’s an intuitive system as opposed to a rote memory system.
Honestly, I’m going into this because I’m fascinated by it. I’m not necessarily trying to “get somewhere”. It’s not about lofty ambitions. But lofty results may end up resulting. Who knows? For now, it feels right and I seem well suited to it

never being wrong about anything is unthinkable

it is to anyone over the age of 13 and has half a brain. I have already proven you wrong in this thread and you have been sperging out about it ever since.

From what I’ve learned, people who excel at coding and programming do very well on the lsat and in law school.

mhm pretty sure they're the highest LSAT scoring group bucketed by degree

remind me, is that the one where shaniqua on the jury lets tyrone go free, or the one where judge shaniqua mmhmmm. jackson lets tyrone go free?

french flag

Pretty sure that's a nose, mate.

but it makes it much easier and you’re able to apply a holistic approach to each question.

Checklist basically
Could be a useful approach to try to become methodical especially within a restrained task like a specific test

Personally I need to do everything I can to reduce my mental load, it’s vital for me, so I tend to do only improvisation and minimum processing power strategies

to learn each question type (there are 13 types)

What a fucked up nightmare this society is
Reminds me of the admission system of ancient China

That’s one of the pitfalls of a high IQ. There’s a certain conceit that attends the gift…in this case, I always figured I was super logical because I could figure things out very easily. But logic is not what I supposed it to be.

Any examples of that?

Logic has always been the one thing I do best and most naturally, so it’s hard for me to believe anything logical could be counter intuitive or counter self building thought

But of course no matter how smart you are your rate of thought is finite, there is a potentially infinite number of things I haven’t thought about yet, and it’s possible I am still ignorant of some fundamental facts in logic, hence why I’m asking if you have examples of some very counter intuitive logic, I’m aiming to patch up and hole I may have.

Extreme perfectionism and an obsession with fixing any error or vulnerability within myself are central to me, I say this as a recommendation, if you aim for flawless ideal perfection, you’ll probably do at least pretty well, and most likely better than everyone else too

The philosophy you describe is basically how common law works. All this time I had no idea how elegant and majestic our legal system is.

You should read an essay by Oliver Wendell Holmes about the study of law. I think you’ll like it. It’s a challenging read. It reminds me of the style Ralph W Emerson used. Very dense and baroque prose…but well worth the effort.

I always lived by the axiom

the perfect is the enemy of the good

yeah you are probably right.

B and D must both be assumed
A C and E are ESL nonsense but are technically also required
OP is brown and has dunning kruger

D.

A, C, and E concern sufficiency and not necessity.
B is a restatement of the second sentence.
D is unstated, and necessary for the second sentence to explain the first.

I always preferred

perfection is the enemy of completion

lol. Point taken. But I very likely will never practice criminal law. I don’t much like criminals…well, at least not the scummy low class ones. I like my criminals the way I like my novels: sophisticated, complex and urbane.

And in our system, wisdom trumps knowledge.

Too bad you don't have the wisdom, as people
Kek this. When I was a teenager I'd read about le jury of your peers and I genuinely thought it's awesome.
Then I got older and slowly realized the horror of being tried by 12 monkeys. White or black, humans are retarded apes - just check those IQ maps. Your jury will have the average IQ of 100, probably less because cleverfags will get out and at least 4 jurors will be between 80-90 kek.
Of course, you can be tried by a single judge and he can be a massive faggot and you're screwed but that's more rare. Sometimes there are 3 judges, that's ideal but I doubt goyim will get that.

Sounds like an absolute nightmare

Why?

Also it sounds to me like you study law to do law, sounds like hell to me

I studied computer science at one of the finest nation's in my country: the university of chicago. If I switch into law, it would be to "do law', yes lol

What are you doing that is so much better? I'm openminded

Yeah, well, that’s a perfect example of why our Anglo common law system is so vastly superior to the Gallic civil law system.

The aspect of a judge being able to change the law of a country that common law has is beyond abhorrent to me

That a court ruling by a low authority can just be enshrined as a policy to follow... just wild

Now who gets to make the law is another debate, but hopefully we can agree that the answer to that question being a literally who judge (very dangerous, any organised tribe can send infiltrators to become judges, use common law to freeze in place systemic vulnerabilities to weaken a nation, eg liberum veto)

So there is that inherent aspect of national security vulnerability that is built in, but also the fact highly biased judges can make decisions way above their station + power of small minorities + lack of power or optimal (best available) decisions mechcnaisms

Now there’s supposed to be the supreme justices to kinda fix that but it has 2 (main immediately visible) issues, first, are they the best decisional mechanism you have access to? they have all the flaws of a judge as well that I mentioned earlier
Secondly, in practice not all cases will go up to the supreme justices
So even if whatever college or whatever size forms the council of supreme justices IS indeed the best decision also mechanism you have access to, it wouldn’t be a perfect safeguard as so many laws and precedents will be laid that will never be analysed by the Supreme Court

These are the main issues, it also deprives the ruling authority of power, which I mentioned earlier but maybe not clearly enough on that point, and it’s bad if the ruling authority is the most competent decesiinal mechanism around or if you are the ruling authority depending on your axiomatic values

2 + 2 = 5 chuddington.

I’ve got to go to bed, gentlemen. I’ve enjoyed this.
Hopefully, Swedebro will keep doing these threads periodically.

Thank you mods for not deleting these. Nothing is more important to democracy than solid logical reasoning among the demos.

Sometimes there are 3 judges, that's ideal but I doubt goyim will get that.

lol you gave me a nice hearty laugh with this
F in the chat for goyim

but are technically all required.

No they are not. When you say "Any X can Y" you are saying "X is sufficient for Y". When you say "Only X can Y" you are saying "X is necessary for Y". Necessity and sufficiency are not the same. The premise states that a nervous system is necessary for pain, and the unstated implication is that pain is necessary for mistreatment. But that does not mean that pain is sufficient for mistreatment, or that a nervous system is sufficient for pain. It could be possible that a subset of creatures with a nervous system do not experience pain, and it could be possible that a subset of creatures that experience pain cannot be mistreated. If this were the case, it would not invalidate prior statements about necessity.

I have had very satisfactory success in some areas with my doctrine to extremist perfectionism

Of course goals have to be defined, doing things fast or without too much effort can be a goal at which point doing this with perfectionism becomes finding the perfect balance between all set weighted factors including time and effort

Generally I set the goal as maximum result and perfectionisrically seek that

That's textbook gpt syntax, hombre.

What are you doing that is so much better? I'm openminded

As I mentioned I’m basically extremely dissatisfied with how things are so the way I see it I don’t see any other reason to live other than get as much power as possible or die trying
It’s not for everyone

Currently I’m just amassing wealth and connections, when I have enough money I will go into politics, take over a country somewhere and then I’ll see, everything depends on the situation and the context, the stakeholders, the people involved, the factions... no use planning too far with precision into chaos. Just focussed on power, and to achieve power, money, in large amounts.

Another approach would be governmental power before money since gouvernemental power gives access to far more money than anything in the civilian sector could, however that’s dangerous so I’m taking the slightly slower but more cautious route of having my own wealth

If my parents had enough funds I would go directly into politics, you need many millions even for a small country like France, American politics run on several billions in lobbying a year, more if you include all campaign expenses

man, the delusion here is top notch. Thanks for all the laughs mate :)

I think it's an understandable goal. Others joke that we should career switch into revolutionary organizing.
How are you gathering wealth in the meantime?Something like a law, tech, or medical career would help with that first phase, surely.

Nothing is more important to democracy than solid logical reasoning among the demos.

Unachievable so a better approach that has the benefit of being more immediately achievable is to ensure you have a core (individual or several individuals) who are capable of flawless logic and are highly skilled in the political arts as a nice bonus, and then do what you and they can to maximise the power these people have at the expense of the power of everyone else, disempower the idiots and insane, and empower the geniuses and rationals

I would preemptively counter any criticism around shortcomings of such a group by arguing that if they have this short coming they are not intelligent or wise enough

Of course if sufficiently high scoring individuals/machines are too hard to find in those categories a next best system would have to be substituted ideally a temporary one.

Information access and flow are also critical but that is a problem to be optimised by the best possible organised crew you have access to hence another rational behind this doctrine/policy of optimally competent group serving as the nucleus of a state

To disempower the people is good, but only if the elites have the necessary personal qualities to do an excellent job in their positions, so the trouble is double: you need both to achieve a maximal disempowerment of the largest number in your reach, but also you need to assemble or possibly invent and fabricate something which can fully make use of the power you grant them

However should you achieve both of these objectives the results speak for themselves.

In essence what I advocated for here is in essence a governement made up of highly competent people ruling with great authority and liberty, there is no argument that it wouldn’t work, the difficulty lies in achieving this state of affairs.

Others joke that we should career switch into revolutionary organizing.

I don’t, though I’m less interested in bandwagoning than I am in leading

How are you gathering wealth in the meantime?

I work in Finance. Private equity.

Something like a law, tech, or medical career would help with that first phase, surely.

No I went for what I judged gave the most money with no regards for personal preference, I’m not alive in the limited time I have on earth to make myself confortable, I’m here to fix the universe with hammer blows or burn myself trying

private equity would also help, probably more than the 3 I listed.

It’s not perfect, it gives me a reputation, that matters in politics

However one of my strongest abilities is the ability to predict the future and be right when everyone else is wrong... useful in finance.

But again, being a rich millionaire banker will stick to me, I’m literally doing what macron did, but it will make me "that banker", hard to become beloved by communist or people with strong jealousy, though not impossible with the right narrative. I just didn’t think I had the time to do anything slower. Private equity also allows me to pivot into entrepreneurship if I see good opportunities.