How competitive is it to get into NYU-CAS?

NYU2013
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:14:24 +0000

You can’t infer “year” from “quarter”. If you do, you know nothing about business. So no, your example on inference is still wrong. As I keep stating, rule of english is that unless it states otherwise, the 2011 year inference is correct. Your job may very well be to decipher language. That has nothing to do with what the rules of english actually are. People speak and write poorly, it’s a plain fact of life; they may even not follow the rules properly. However, as that sentence is written, the rules of english would say that it is a present tense “this spring” and that it refers to the yearly acceptance rate, as the previous part of the statement did; since, if it wanted to refer to a different acceptance rate, it would have to state that acceptance rate. If it doesn’t state a different acceptance rate then, as far as the english language is concerned, it is referring to the already stated acceptance rate. I’ve worked for many lawyers, held many legal jobs, dealt with many legal write ups and documents, observed many cases and provided plenty of essential documentation for courts. I know perfectly well how attempts to deceive are supposed to work. However, you try to claim, essentially, that ‘vagueness’ (making inferences, leaving information out, etc.) is an acceptable form of attempted deception. It’s not. Being vague is the worst way to try and make a deceptive statement because then it leaves plenty of room for inferences and argumentation. The only way a vague statement would ever work is if the person you’re dealing with does not have the mental capacity or mental desire to cipher through the statement and parse the vagueness out. Otherwise, you’ve left too much room open for debate.

In all of your examples of how language can be “misunderstood” you have only made yourself look as though you don’t understand formal language or its’ use at all. “Have you infer things (then deny ever having said them)” Well clearly they can deny they ever said them because they actually never did. When you’re making an inference on something that was said, the speaker never actually said what you were supposed to or at least did infer, so the speaker has every right and grounds to deny ever having said what you inferred; because, in fact, they never did say it. Your other inferences from Mike being RA to Mike being the cause of the drop in crime rate was also an invalid example, as it was both vague and improper to assert that Mike was the cause the said drop in crime rate, as there are no grounds to claim such. It’s a conclusory statement lacking evidentiary properties.

USNWR reported a 39% yield. However, as USNWR changed their available free information, I no longer have access to that. But, that figure doesn’t make a difference. 37% yield, as reported by NYU, still equates to approximately 1/4 the size of the CAS undergraduate body.