<p>kingsize: Silverturtle is essentially saying that the addition of any, if only one, students to a given applicant pool will statistically decrease the probability of any one applicant receiving an acceptance.</p>
<p>1/29997 > 1/29998</p>
<p>As “(This is my typical answer to questions about whether a given improvement is possible, as long as it is reasonable.)” indicates, silverturtle will say “yes” to any question asking whether an event is possible, even if the event has an 1 in a bajillion chance of happening.</p>
<p>Silverturtle’s original statement of “not necessarily higher…but will negatively affect…” is not a logical fallacy. It happens all the time. “Not that Mexico City has a higher chance of being chosen as the designated location for relocation of Capitol Hill than does Alberqueque, but Mexico City’s entrance into consideration creates more competitors for Alberqueque, which will decrease Alberqueque’s chances for the bid.” 1 in a bajillion indeed (I better run)</p>
<p>The A: B spits lies and B: A tells the truth sounds more like a bipartisan adaptation of the Cretan Liar paradox–not a fallacy.</p>
<p>Btw silverturtle, I noticed that you used “perfectly” to modify “fine.” Obviously, there are some faults to using such a “sagacious thread like this for open discussion,” as evident in your choosing of “fine” instead of another word that describes circumstances at an extreme. “Unquestionable,” which would eliminate the need for a modifier like “perfectly,” springs to mind. Explanation please?</p>
<p>Silverturtle, by your data on SAT scores with correlation to admission rate. With that statistic, it seems anyone who gets 800’s on mostly any of the sections, would have a 50% more chance to be accepted to those Ivies (Overall), as opposed to someone who gets a 2300. Interesting.</p>
<p>I’ve really enjoyed the guide (from what I have read), but before I go over it in detail, I’d like to ask one (perhaps a bit pedantic) question regarding the examples you provided.</p>
<p>From what source(s) are they taken? I ask this because I have not yet done the BB tests nor have I done the Online Course tests; therefore, I’d rather not accidentally see the answer to a question that I may have gotten wrong, thereby muddying the results of the practice tests.</p>
<p>In the interest of avoiding exactly what you describe, I turned to a source that I did not expect would be a problem for any significant number of readers: the January 2010 QAS. However, the example sentences that I provide in the Writing section (as opposed to the Practice section questions) are my own except where I qualify otherwise.</p>
<p>If its being fine is true in all circumstances, no questions asked, it then becomes unquestionable because nothing, implicit or not, can challenge its being fine.</p>
<p>That’s the problem I have with extreme qualifiers: oftentimes, users of them, if questioned, would probably answer “oh no, I didn’t mean to that extent, no, not the greatest possible, but rather a very large one.” Words like “perfect,” “extreme,” and “optimum” were first used with one definition in mind (i.e., they cannot be intensified or softened). However, vogue writers along the way probably went like “hmm, the elephant is extremely large,” paving the way for varying degrees of words intended to fit either the maximum or the minimum, but not to an extent in between the extrema.</p>
[quote=silverturtle]
I am merely saying that his or her applying will hurt your chance.<a href=“A”>/quote</a>
[quote=silverturtle]
I am not saying that the applicant with the higher GPA has a higher chance than you<a href=“B”>/quote</a></p>
<p>Conclusion (C)
Logically, if someone with a higher GPA applies, then that will hurt your chances.
You tried to use the Socratic method in a spurious fashion- it failed your reasoning.
You stived to illustrate that if A=B, and B=C, A=C. However, A≠C, since B≠C (We talked about courseload along with SAT scores).
∴ this is a logical fallacy.
∵ B ≠ (does not necessarily- I have repeated this numerous times) C.</p>
<p>You look for evidence that merely stands in opposition to courseload in high school and propose arguments out of false axioms.</p>
<p>This argument is thus without any logically effective underpinning.</p>
<p>Hence, adding the missing elements is not a flawed procedure; it is firmly grounded in the application of college admissions- refer to tokenadult’s post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am well aware of that. However, the dataset that is given to us is a crucial factor in determining the elements of this equation.
By leaving out this element ((A ∩ B) ⊆ A), silverturtle has committed a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The missing element was courseload along with SAT scores.</p>
<p>
Precisely. I merely wanted to illustrate such an example. But thank you for your clarification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silverturtle is a compassionate young man.
His assidiousness along with his fervid work ethic resulted in this marvelous guide.
I hope there are more benevolent posters like this mate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let us all congratulate silverturtle for his generosity- this is what internet communications can do- it enlightens us. Also, many thanks to Jersey13, christiansoldier, and TurquoiseHexagon.</p>
<p>antonioray- you miserably failed to establish a valid thesis by your blatant use of argumentum ad hominem. I am fully and deeply aware of the fact that the argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious.
However, in your aforementioned post, you have inculcated your cantankerousness (call me eristic, but…) upon us as a foundation of your thesis.
By using argumentum ad hominem, I do not know the main presupposition of this discussion.</p>
<p>Pursuant to these facts shown above, I firmly believe that this discussion is meaningless.</p>
<p>I’ll repost the original statement in case some readers don’t know what you are referring to:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that “fine” is explicitly unqualified means that it is always fine in every way to use this as a discussion forum; it does not mean that all discussions are fine. Characterizing a general idea (i.e., use of this as a discussion forum) in that way (i.e., “perfectly fine”) need not imply that specific applications of that idea are likewise appropriate. At least that was my thinking.</p>
<p>I maintain that I have not committed a logical fallacy. In order to illustrate this, I offer a smaller-scale analogy. </p>
<p>Two friends are applying for a new job that has opened up at work; it is a promotion for both of them. There are two primary considerations for this job: one’s performance ratings in his or her previous position with consideration given to the difficulty of that job, and how well one performs during the interview. One of the two friends, whom I will call Boogle for my own amusement, has a 4.5/5 performance rating average, whereas the other friend has a 4.1/5 performance average in a similar job. The latter is banking on an awesome interview. Nonetheless, we would say that Boogle is in a better position and has a better chance of getting the job.</p>
<p>Much to the friends’ dismay, they discover that someone from another department has decided to apply for the new position. They aren’t really familiar with his job or how difficult it is (they don’t work much with that department), but they do some digging and find out what his performance rating average is: 4.7/5. Does this mean that this third applicant will get the job over Boogle? No; we don’t have any idea of how well he interviews. Does it mean that the third applicant has a better chance than Boogle? Not necessarily; we would have to know the difficulty of the third applicant’s job. Does it mean that Boogle’s and his friend’s chances have gone down? Yes.</p>
<p>Hmm.
Let me reconsider this case and report back to you.</p>
<p>So far, I can come up with one analysis.</p>
<p>We are back to set theory.</p>
<p>So we have Boggle, 4.5, and 4.7.</p>
<p>These are the axioms that you presented:</p>
<p>Boggle, 4.5, and 4.7 ∈Application pool
(Boggle ∩ 4.5 ∩ 4.7 ) ⊆ Application pool</p>
<p>However, Boggle=4.1/5.0</p>
<p>^In this “smaller-scale” analogy, you once again unknowingly (or knowingly) committed a grave mistake- you have changed your thesis.</p>
<p>In your previous posts you have excluded other elements concerning courseload,…etc but now we are back to the original equation with an addendum of other elements.</p>
<p>However, since your subset is not the “entire application pool”, I think you were trying to illustrate this situation- A ⊆ B ⇔ (A ∪ B) = B.</p>
<p>In reality, applicants are not being compared (not everyone submits their app 31/12).</p>
<p>So you are indeed correct about talking about the bigger set, but in reality, the subsets cancel each other out, so there is no room for this discussion.</p>
<p>Kingsize: before I start, I just want to say that I love the way you write.</p>
<p>
Bravo. Are you on a debate team?
I’m not going to defend silverturtle against an alleged act of a logical fallacy–not that I think his viewpoint is unworthy of defending, but I’m just lazy.</p>
<p>
Yes, I didn’t even estahblish a thesis! Or did you really mean that my thesis was later invalidated by my use of *argumentum ad hominem sans<a href=“italics%20removed%20for%20the%20lowly%20English%20words”>/I</a> a demeaning adjective?</p>
<p>
Wonderful. I guess you’re also fully and deeply aware that while ad hominem arguments can’t justify a stance by itself, the presence of one does not necessarily invalidate a stance advanced by other, valid arguments?</p>
<p>
Exactly what I had intended to do. Guess my true aim has been uncovered, better give it up now.</p>
<p>
So it was you that used aah!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh OK I see what you mean. However, my qualms are with the use of absolute modifiers. I just extended the argument to include the context as an example of how an idea can be inappropriately taken to the extrema.</p>
<p>
Really? As crazybandit would be quick to point out, discuss is a transitive verb. What if we were to use this thread as a forum to discuss, say, plastic bowls or frighteningly obscene content? In either case, the use of this thread as a discussion forum would not be fine–two exceptions to the “it’s always fine in every way…” doctrine.</p>
<p>
Err, ok… I guess I should say “thank you for your kind words” ?</p>
<p>
I’m not going to dispute that, but,
How many other gurus of the SAT are there on CC, or even in the world, period?
How many disputed gurus of any discipline exist in the world?</p>