Comprehension (logic) Puns

Some how I queue random fill and get teammates that

1. don't have mic
2. don't even land w/ the team
3. are shooting randomly in the air no where near enemies whenever i look at them

and I ALSO in the SAME GAME get enemies that are

1. all the same skin on a squad
2. building pros that use flick edits
3. aim like professionals

It really just doesn't make any semblance of sense. I am Schrodinger's MMR level. It thinks I'm a total freaking noob for the purpose of choosing my allies, and a total pro for the purpose of choosing my enemies.

Just started studying again. I’m trying to take this test again in January or February and it just seems impossible for me to get less less than 5 wrong for logical reasoning and less than 7 for reading comprehension.

I scored a 155 on my October lsat and was scoring slightly higher on my practice tests, my highest so far being a 161, so it’s pretty much my tests are dependent on how I do on the logic games section of the test.

I think I’m beginning to rectify a few habits/problems before that kind of put me behind:

1. I’m reading news articles more in depth now instead of skimming through them.
2. I’m going to have less of a do or die attitude for going to law school
3. I’m taking study breaks more often
4. Not going to take more than one test a week

But anyone who’s been in my spot what do you suggest I do to really maximize my scoring potential and understand things a bit more?

Or New Yorker or economist

This doesn't happen to me personally very often, but I have seen it happen a lot to others I read or on websites where the comments reflect mind-boggling stupidity despite the content of the article. I want to understand what is going on.

Is this just "Internet Culture"? If so, why has it become so? Why is the internet so irrational at times? I will try to be more specific as to what I mean by "irrational".

For example, this is occasionally common in the subreddits I lurk in. You can take this as direct quotes. Very simple statements, very simple logic, with reasonable & respectful replies from Person1, but in the end they "lose" on the internet. I often scratch my head as to why.

> Person1: You should choose OptionA. I believe OptionB is less efficient than OptionA for your circumstance, even though OptionB is still good overall. > > BadLogicGuy1: OptionB is great. Not sure what problem you have against it. > > Person1: I do not have a problem with OptionB. In fact, (repeat) I believe OptionB is good overall. > > BadLogicGuy1: Ha! Here is evidence proving OptionB is good overall! [shows evidence OptionB is good in one context, as if Person1 said it was bad] > > InsertRandomRedditor2: I agree with BadLogicGuy1. Your weird vendetta against OptionB is wrong. > > Person1: Once again, I have no problem against OptionB. I stated twice it is good overall. However, you're not making sense. Why are you submitting evidence when I never stated OptionB is bad and stated twice I believe it is good overall? > > BadLogicGuy1: OptionB is good and you know it! You just got owned! [logs out smirking with a feeling of victory] > > RandomReddtor3: Way to go BadLogicGuy1! I hate all these people who think OptionB is always bad. > > Person1: I really do not understand what just happened. I never once stated OptionB is bad. I said it is good overall. > > SometimesCommunity3: Downvote Person1!

Anyone with basic reading comprehension or who can follow simple logic would find Person1 to be the only reasonable person, right? Wrong, apparently. I very often read other people beating down people just like Person1, responding just like BadLogicGuy1, and in the end as long as no one is too aggressive or disrespectful then no one is downvoted into oblivion, but BadLogicGuy1 will get tons of upvotes for some reason. If Person1 reacts frustrated in any way? Downvotes will surge.

I know that is not a perfect exampl

What does it mean when something "does not make sense"?

We could phrase that another way, and call it "nonsense".

Nonsense has a definition, but Google says

> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense

so we're kind of back to our original point. no matter, we're going to try our best.

When I speak about nonsense in this post, I'm not talking your average everyday nonsense like "a cow jumped over the moon", or "Justin Bieber's music isn't really all that bad", I'm here to talk to you guys about fundamental nonsense.

Basically, things that violate the Laws of Thought.

First of all, I don't really like that title. Very Ivory Tower, and I think it presents a facade of authority propped up through millennia and is arguably the greatest scandal in all of philosophy.

In my time, I have glimpsed the black arkane exposing these things for what they really are.

These principles are not divine providence passed down to us from heaven. These were invented by man, and as Sextus Empiricus tells us about justification in his Five Tropes of Skepticism:

> We have the mode from hypothesis when the Dogmatists, being thrown back ad infinitum, begin from something which they do not establish but claim to assume simply and without proof in virtue of a concession.

They are assumptions we use to describe the world we live in, verified every time we've encountered everything so far, but there is absolutely nothing suggesting that's how things will be in the future because they are not divinely inspired objective fact.

Just assumptions that we cannot prove.

Now, I totally get what you're thinking. They are extraordinarily useful assumptions, that you and I pretty much have to accept in order to even have this conversation in the first place. I get it. Without them we only have nonsense, yada yada, I'm pretty sure the universe isn't gonna suddenly get real weird with it.

But we cannot necessarily use them to prescribe the nature of things we have never seen and arguably cannot possibly interact with.

I'm talking about the outside of the universe. Not just the observable one, outside the Hubble Sphere. Like, outside of the envelope of time and space, beyond p

A post to a topic about Cohan’s sentencing:

“The blackmailed Cohen. The FBI knew the non-disclosure payments weren't a crime, but that is why they raided his office. They caught him on tax evasion personally and basically said to him: "Okay Cohen, you can do 10 for tax fraud or you can plead guilty to a non-existent crime and do 3."

It was bullying him into the plea deal, and has everything to do with optics. It is some really dirty, backdoor shit. The idea is to abuse their ability to lock people up via a kangaroo court in order to create the image of a crime out of a non-crime, for the sole purpose of associating Trump with something they labelled a crime (which actually isn't).

This is how corrupt they are. It is all about optics.

This just in: Trump guilty of using his own money to try and win an election!

For God's sake the FEC chairman said it wasn't criminal. But apparently the FBI can do basically whatever they want at this point, and who would've guessed jurisdiction was important? (/s) They found an email to a Russian address requesting info pertaining to Trump building a hotel there and they peppered that on this big plate of horseshit.

Using the legal system to write an imaginary tale. It literally is this: if they can get the press to say they are investigating something...its become criminal now. Even if it isn't law. They are just writing their own laws now with the news corps.”

Has tons of up votes. They really believe this shit with zero proof of any of it. This is insanity.

I also find it crazy that they are a ok with the president lying right to their faces when he said he never paid off these woman, never did anything with them and it was all made up. Now we know that 100% false.

It was thought to have been proven in this paper that Łukasiewicz–Cantor set theory (ŁC) was consistent. Page 77 of Petr Hájek on Mathematical Fuzzy Logic says that a gap was found in the author of the paper's proof. I believe that I have found out that ŁC has a simple truth value semantics (in the sense of the Wikipedia article) with respect to which it is complete and sound, and that it is fuzzily syntactically complete (in the sense that the degree to which ~A is provable is the degree to which A is disprovable). I believe that it can be proven straight-forwardly after the semantics is given if we include set-builder constants. I say that ŁC is rationally valued because Łukasiewicz predicate logic is complete with respect to the rationally valued semantics, and the logical axioms that Łukasiewicz–Cantor set theory uses as are the axioms with respect to which Łukasiewicz fuzzy quantificational theory is complete.

 

For every variable, φ, ⊨φ is the degree to which φ is valid, a rational number inclusively between 0 and 1.

For every variable, v; for every formula closed under v (including every closed formula), φ; and for every closed term or variable, t, φ(t/v) is the result of substitution of t for every free occurence of v in φ.

For every closed term (i.e. for every set-builder constant), t; for every variable, v; and for every formula closed under v, φ, ⊨t∈{v|φ}, is ⊨φ(t/v).

For every variable, v1; for every formula closed under v1, φ1; for every variable, v2; and for every formula closed under v2, φ2, ⊨{v1|φ1}={v2|φ2} is the infimum of the absolute differences of φ1(t/v1) and φ2(t/v2) for all closed terms, t.

Definitions of negation and material implication are normal. (Here's the section of the Wikipedia article.)

For every variable, v, and for every formula closed under v, φ, ⊨Ɐvφ is the infimum of the substitutions φ(t/v) for all closed terms, t.

 

A set of xioms of ŁC are the propositional axioms stated here plus the following:

For every variable, v; for every formula closed under v, φ1; and for every formula closed

And reading comprehension is the thing I find the most difficult, since English is not my first language and I think I haven't read enough English literature to get through the questions fast enough. Time is definitely short on reading comprehension questions, although I'm progressing. So for reading comprehension, I can't read the text & questions thoroughly and I think it's the main reason why I get so many wrong questions at this part. Any tips for improving the reading comprehension score? And what score can I expect at this point? Thanks.

Helping someone prep for July. What would you do at this point? Drill the shit out of LR until perfect (considering there are two sections)? Try to master Logic Games? Keeping taking timed exams? Thanks for any thoughts.

So when I first started studying before I started studying logical reasoning or logic games my reading comprehension was -6, and my other scores were poorer but now my reading comprehension scores have ranged from -14 - -8. It’s super discouraging and I don’t know how to improve