So i preemptively apologize if this entry is slightly sub-par....I've been lsat-ing all day with a brief break for yoga--and yes I realize how ridiculous that sounds--but the lsat is pretty ridiculous, example question from today:
Q: Pretzels cause cavities. Interstingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the liklihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of carmels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a carmel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
What is the flaw in this reasoning?
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, but I think I'll stop soon, watch a movie and then just sleep--over tomorrow!!
Anywho, i thought i would continue with the Charlie Brown theme AND continue with the broadway life lessons with this little kristin chenoweth (of betty! (hi j), frasier (hi a! and d, since i know frasier's on before golden girls) and pushing daisies (hi craig! our 1 reader) number from "you're a good man, charlie brown" in which she played sally brown.....LOVE her, this is the role she first became semi-famous for (and won a tony for!)...sorry i promise a better post next week
also, unrelated to broadway, but interesting/amusing/important
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
wait, what's the flaw? i want to know if i have a future as a lawyer. since we all know it depends on that one question. stupid standardized testing.
indeed. ugh.
but the answer was
"it treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well"
i mean OBVI
I don't even understand the answer. Why does a lawyer need to know about cavities? This is just all so confusing
Post a Comment