4.0?

[nspeds]

<p>

He just asked a rhetorical question.

</p>

<p>If it was a rhetorical question, then the answer can very well be assumed. Based off that answer, the fallacy applies.</p>

<p><em>yawn</em></p>

[nspeds]

<p>

So, if you were rejected from Brown, what happend to UChicago?

</p>

<p>Waiting, waiting, waiting. You probably hope I will be rejected, and I do not know what I want from them. An acceptance would make my life complicated. Applying seemed like a good idea back in February. We will see what happens.</p>

<p>Edit: What a bunch of disjointed sentences. That needs to be fixed. Oh well, more pineapple pizza.</p>

[martinibluex]

<p>

He just asked a rhetorical question.

</p>

<p>If it was a rhetorical question, then the answer can very well be assumed. Based off that answer, the fallacy applies.</p>

<p><em>yawn</em>

yes. and the implied answer is that 3.82 at HBU isn’t impressive, just like you claimed about 4.00s at CC, not that 4.00 at CC are impressive.</p>

<p><em>yawn</em> <em>stretch</em></p>

<p>introducing false premises, carefully chosen to prove you point, seems to be working out for your self esteem. keep it up!</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

yes. and the implied answer is that 3.82 at HBU isn’t impressive, just like you claimed about 4.00s at CC, not that 4.00 at CC are impressive.

</p>

<p>Yes, but I never claimed that a 3.92 at HBU is impressive. Any claim to that effect, or to the contrary is thus otiose.</p>

<p>

introducing false premises, carefully chosen to prove you point, seems to be working out for your self esteem. keep it up!

</p>

<p>You are not making any sense. This reminds me of the time you posted that philosophical passage, the contents of which you could not even comprehend.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Again a false presumption leading to false victory. Your LSAT prep doesn’t seem to be helping you when you find yourself in logical cul de sacs.

</p>

<p>False victory over what? My claim that a 4.0 from CC is not impressive still stands.</p>

[TheMagnanimous]

<p>

Yes, but I never claimed that a 3.92 at HBU is impressive. Any claim to that effect, or to the contrary is thus otiose.

</p>

<p>Correct, but you have claimed that many people on the board are your intellectual inferiors, and claims of this nature directed towards some posters seemed to also be linked to the fact that they attend CC’s. If they have 4.0’s, and they are your intellectual inferiors, then it would follow that that your academic record should be more impressive than theirs. Which doesn’t seem to be the case. Feel free to critique my logic</p>

[martinibluex]

<p>

Yes, but I never claimed that a 3.92 at HBU is impressive. Any claim to that effect, or to the contrary is thus otiose.

Nobody claimed that you did claim that. Again a false presumption leading to false victory. Your LSAT prep doesn’t seem to be helping you when you find yourself in logical cul de sacs.</p>

<p>

Quote:
introducing false premises, carefully chosen to prove you point, seems to be working out for your self esteem. keep it up!</p>

<p>You are not making any sense. This reminds me of the time you posted that philosophical passage, the contents of which you could not even comprehend.

The false premise which you introduced was that his claim was that 4.00s at CC are impressive.
4 hours a dey prep for the LSAT and you still can’t get it.</p>

[tallkell]

<p>“My claim that a 4.0 from a CC is not impressive still stands.”</p>

<p>Funny how Berkeley, UCLA, and all the rest of the UCs think it is. </p>

<p>btw…Berkeley is ranked higher than Georgetown ;)</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Correct, but you have claimed that many people on the board are your intellectual inferiors,

</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>

and claims of this nature directed towards some posters seemed to also be linked to the fact that they attend CC’s.

</p>

<p>Key word: seems. I never implied or explicitly stated that.</p>

<p>

then it would follow that that your academic record should be more impressive than theirs. Which doesn’t seem to be the case.

</p>

<p>So much for assessing my… entire academic record, such as my SAT scores and current GPA.</p>

[tallkell]

<p>“So much for assessing my… entire academic record, such as my SAT scores and current GPA.” Umm…it’s only a mouse click away. I know since we are CC students, assessment of 3.8gpa from a 3rd/4th year school would seem like a real challenge…</p>

[martinibluex]

<p>

Quote:
Again a false presumption leading to false victory. Your LSAT prep doesn’t seem to be helping you when you find yourself in logical cul de sacs.

</p>

<p>False victory over what? My claim that a 4.0 from CC is not impressive still stands

</p>

<p>Yes, but your claim that
{[Btw, if 4.0’s at CC’s aren’t impressive as you’ve been implying, how is a 3.82 at Houston Baptist impressive?] implies that [4.00 at a CC is impressive]} doesn’t.
Got it yet?</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Umm…it’s only a mouse click away.

</p>

<p>…and yet for some reason themag only chose to include some of it.</p>

<p>

{[Btw, if 4.0’s at CC’s aren’t impressive as you’ve been implying, how is a 3.82 at Houston Baptist impressive?] implies that [4.00 at a CC is impressive]} doesn’t.
Got it yet?

</p>

<p>You are really not making any sense.</p>

<p>Edit: And I do not mean this derisively. I think you have something worthwhile to say, but your point is not very lucid.</p>

[martinibluex]

<p>Could you be more generic? I even put the brakets for you. That inscrutable, eh?
Print this conversation and consult somebody BETTER. You will be up for a rude awakening.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Print this conversation and consult somebody BETTER. You will be up for a rude awakening.

</p>

<p>Given your already proven ineptitude with the English language, I doubt it.</p>

<p>Edit: Your statement was not in accordance with proper logical schema.</p>

[martinibluex]

<p>

Print this conversation and consult somebody BETTER. You will be up for a rude awakening.

… or simply take the LSAT.</p>

[TheMagnanimous]

<p>

Key word: seems. I never implied or explicitly stated that.

</p>

<p>I guess I was referring to this:</p>

<p>

The best defense mechanism CC students have when they encounter students with better vocabularies: do not recognize them for their superior vocabulary, but rather disparage them and hold culpable a character defect they must possess.

</p>

<p>Maybe it was general condescension towards CC’ers that I was referring to.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

… or simply take the LSAT.

</p>

<p>Huh? Now you are really not making any sense.</p>

<p>“Ray of light” is a good song.</p>

<p>Dumdeedumdedum.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Johnstone is most centrally identified with the thesis that all philosophical argument relies on its capacity to make a valid assertion within the framework of one’s interlocutor. Quite unlike his Belgian counterparts Ch. Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca,[1] who advocated that philosophical validity resided in appeals that could gain the adherence of a universal audience, Johnstone maintained that philosophical arguments were valid only insofar as they were deemed valid by those to whom they were addressed (1952b). For Johnstone, all arguments were bounded by the system of presuppositions in which they were situated. In his view, a proposition without an underlying system of presuppositions was open to the charge of being an arbitrary assertion. One justified one’s claims, including alterations in one’s assertions, with an eye to achieving consistency with the presuppositions on which the system rested. Six years before Stephen Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument[2] appeared, in which he advanced his much acclaimed theory of field dependent argument, Johnstone’s article on the argumentum ad hominem was advancing his own thesis, which cut across the grain of universality as the benchmark of validity.

</p>

<p>Remember this passage you posted, Martini, and its sheer irrelevance to the conversation?</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=157850&page=3&pp=15&highlight=logical[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=157850&page=3&pp=15&highlight=logical&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[martinibluex]

<p>

Edit: Your statement was not in accordance with proper logical schema.

Again a very generic statement, that you provided no evidence for. </p>

<p>

Given your already proven ineptitude with the English language, I doubt it.

It is just a question of time that you realize that my english will get me further than you will ever go.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>

Again a very generic statement, that you provided no evidence for.

</p>

<p>Evidence!?! I am not going to teach you elementary logic.</p>

<p>

It is just a question of time that you realize that my english will get me further than you will ever go.

</p>

<p>This is true. Once I die and you work very hard at it, then perhaps it will be possible!!!</p>

<p>:D</p>

<p>Waha.</p>

<p>Edit: You are a nontraditional, so you are in your mid-20s. I am younger, so your “english-surpassing” statement deserves the modal logic operator of “not on any possible world,” though we have yet to see whom Darwin will choose.</p>