tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4829262628267442354..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: LSAT and IQUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35418113681228795272012-04-02T07:57:41.140-07:002012-04-02T07:57:41.140-07:00The links on this page don't work anymore. I w...The links on this page don't work anymore. I wish you had posted the answers to the questions instead of a link.jghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18200259563171845136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82546454465217571402009-03-31T14:41:00.000-07:002009-03-31T14:41:00.000-07:00K should earn more than EITHER L or I.Based on my ...K should earn more than EITHER L or I.<BR/><BR/>Based on my own IQ scores and my LSAT score, the LSAT -> conversion does understate IQ. But my IQ scores are from school testing in elementary, middle school, and early high school, so its possible that my IQ dropped by the time I took the LSAT 8 or 9 years later. I seem to recall that IQ is a little malleable as you grow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7531935172518548972009-03-30T02:02:00.000-07:002009-03-30T02:02:00.000-07:00Tommy and Jarz, just as you have to make some addi...<I>Tommy and Jarz, just as you have to make some additional assumptions beyond what D literally says to conclude that it is the correct answer, you could do the same for A - that of all the people who continue to smoke and are aware of the dangers of smoking, none were made aware of the dangers thru warnings.</I><BR/><BR/>My assumptions are quite reasonable. The question is whether or not warning labels for smoking have had an effect on the number of people smoking among the general population. (A) doesn't address this issue one way or the other. The problem does not restrict itself to the body of current smokers and, even if it did, the statement does not address whether anyone ever dropped smoking because of the warning labels. The existence of millions of smokers doesn't preclude millions more who might have dropped the habit.<BR/><BR/>If you want to dig a little deeper into this question, then this is a test of whether an individual knows something about implications:<BR/><BR/>Millions of people smoke -> warning labels have had no effect.<BR/><BR/>Since the antecedent is undoubtedly true, you can't attack the statement from the standpoint of formal logic other than to argue against the consequent. <BR/><BR/>An implication is true if the consequent is true regardless of the truth value of the antecedent unless both the antecedent and the consequent are false (in which case the implication is true). No answer except (D) disputes the consequent. (D) is the correct answer.tommynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12917251582868732862009-03-30T01:17:00.000-07:002009-03-30T01:17:00.000-07:00This kerfluffle over D) is absurd, the argument is...This kerfluffle over D) is absurd, the argument is that it doesn't refute the "argument" (if you call it that) because only "people", and not necessarily smokers, are alleged by D) to have learned about the dangers of smoking from the labels.<BR/><BR/>But if you wish to be so nitpicky, the statement was essentially "we must reluctantly conclude that the Surgeon General's Pompous Warning has *had no effect*". Actually, then, to literally refute this argument you would have to prove only that something in the universe was somehow affected by one of these labels.<BR/><BR/>The other arguments don't even talk about the effects that the labels have had. D) does. So it's a slam dunk, how can anyone be confused here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8648587447479446642009-03-29T21:55:00.000-07:002009-03-29T21:55:00.000-07:00"Accomplishments leave trails. Referring to them w..."Accomplishments leave trails. Referring to them would reveal ones identity. Most people here wish to remain anonymous so as to "maintain their viabilitiy within the system" to use the immortal words of Bill Clinton."<BR/><BR/>That would be one viable theory, another one would be, well, that they haven't accomplished anything.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77561118899582597592009-03-29T21:00:00.000-07:002009-03-29T21:00:00.000-07:00David and Jarz, I think you are correct. Excellen...David and Jarz, I think you are correct. <BR/><BR/>Excellent break down David.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68645175974134489652009-03-29T20:47:00.000-07:002009-03-29T20:47:00.000-07:00Jarz, let me play devil's advocate, because I thin...Jarz, let me play devil's advocate, because I think you may be missing something.<BR/><BR/>You said: The argument is not that "the warnings have had no effect on smokers," it's that the warnings have had no effect on anyone. <BR/><BR/>The question reads, "This is so despite government campaigns to warn people of the dangers of smoking." <BR/><BR/>OK, Jarz, when it says, "This is so", what do you think it's talking about?<BR/><BR/>The previous sentence states what "is so": "... study has shown that there are still millions of people who are unaware that they endanger their health by smoking cigarettes."<BR/><BR/>In other words, they are talking about smokers, people who "endanger their health by smoking cigarrettes". <BR/><BR/>Here's the key thing to keep in mind, IMO. That first sentence referring specifically to smokers *is* the evidentiary piece of the arguemnt that is subject to empirical refutation. And D doesn't provide it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86080103716586853332009-03-29T20:36:00.000-07:002009-03-29T20:36:00.000-07:00This goes back so far (mid-'70s) it may not apply ...This goes back so far (mid-'70s) it may not apply any longer, but FWIW ... Back in the day I generally scored pretty high on standardized tests, and I went on to work in the media and publishing fields. Words come easy. When I was a college senior, having no idea what I might do next, I took a sample LSAT -- and scored the worst I'd scored on any standardized test ever. I forget what the number was, but it was low. I like reading and writing and I seem to be able to think straight. But for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the difference was between many of the answers I was meant to choose among. Needless to say I gave up my small whim of heading into the law ...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896402796926124332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53915710225804970422009-03-29T20:27:00.000-07:002009-03-29T20:27:00.000-07:00Smoking: the correct answer is D.Let's look at the...Smoking: the correct answer is D.<BR/><BR/>Let's look at the question closely.<BR/><BR/><I>A study has shown that there are still millions of people who are unaware that they endanger their health by smoking cigarettes.</I><BR/><BR/>These are smokers. If they were people in general (non-smokers and smokers) then the question would be phrased something like this: "Millions of people still don't know that smoking is unhealthy."<BR/><BR/><I>This is so despite government campaigns to warn people of the dangers of smoking. Reluctantly, one has to draw the conclusion that the <B>mandatory warnings that tobacco companies are required to print</B> have had no effect.</I><BR/><BR/>Those warnings that tobacco companies are required to print are for smokers or potential smokers, people who pick up a pack or look at magazine ads. The smoking-inclined, let's call them.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the most important sentence of all:<BR/><BR/><I>Which one of the following, if true, would refute the argument in the passage?</I><BR/><BR/>We're trying to disprove or at least undermine what the passage says - so, we need to understand what the passage says in the first place. It says <B><I>Reluctantly, one has to draw the conclusion that the mandatory warnings that tobacco companies are required to print have had no effect.</I></B> That's what we must trip up.<BR/><BR/>Of the following, D comes the closest to that.<BR/><BR/><I>(A) Many people who continue to smoke are aware of the dangers of smoking.</I> [This helps, not hurts, the argument.]<BR/><I>(B) Some people smoke cigarettes for legitimate reasons.</I> [Ditto: in other words, the warnings aren't working.]<BR/><I>(C) Government has had to force companies to warn potential customers of the dangers of their products.</I> [Irrelevant.]<BR/><I>(D) Some people who are aware of the dangers of smoking were made aware of them by the mandatory warnings.</I> [I.e., contrary to the argument, the warnings could be working.]<BR/><I>(E) Smoking is clearly responsible for a substantial proportion of preventable illness in the country.</I> [Irrelevant.]<BR/><BR/>The only trick involved is that D is weak. It could be stated more strongly: "Millions read and many heed the warnings." Then again, the question would be too easy if the answer were put that forcefully.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56771482463958189762009-03-29T19:47:00.000-07:002009-03-29T19:47:00.000-07:00ignore my last post. I got it now.sol ipsisignore my last post. I got it now.<BR/><BR/>sol ipsisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48137383853669653562009-03-29T18:31:00.000-07:002009-03-29T18:31:00.000-07:00Tommy and Jarz, just as you have to make some addi...Tommy and Jarz, just as you have to make some additional assumptions beyond what D literally says to conclude that it is the correct answer, you could do the same for A - that of all the people who continue to smoke and are aware of the dangers of smoking, none were made aware of the dangers thru warnings.<BR/><BR/>I'm just as convinced as before that on strictly logical grounds none of the answers are correct and to choose D, you actually have to read more into it than what is explicitly stated.<BR/><BR/>sol ipsisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71944577340997046142009-03-29T18:17:00.000-07:002009-03-29T18:17:00.000-07:00"Truth said... "Who's to say that people who po..."Truth said...<BR/><BR/> "Who's to say that people who post here haven't accomplished something?"<BR/><BR/> Why the people who post here, because if they had, they would brag about that and not some test they took in 1982."<BR/><BR/>Accomplishments leave trails. Referring to them would reveal ones identity. Most people here wish to remain anonymous so as to "maintain their viabilitiy within the system" to use the immortal words of Bill Clinton.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43315958898132925562009-03-29T11:25:00.000-07:002009-03-29T11:25:00.000-07:00I've accomplished some high-g progeny. I don't ha...I've accomplished some high-g progeny. I don't have to do anything else except find them some mates. SILLY HIGH G RABBITS! YOU HAVE NO MATES!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16938303998358182832009-03-29T10:47:00.000-07:002009-03-29T10:47:00.000-07:00Anonymous said:"The argument is that the warnings ...Anonymous said:<BR/><BR/>"The argument is that the warnings have had no effect on smokers. If some smokers who were previously unaware of the dangers of smoking were made aware of those dangers through warnings, then it cannot be argued that the warnings have had no effect.<BR/><BR/>"It seems to me that makes all the difference."<BR/><BR/>The argument is not that "the warnings have had no effect on smokers," it's that the warnings have had no effect on anyone. <BR/><BR/>The question reads, "This is so despite government campaigns to warn people of the dangers of smoking." "People," not "smokers." Hence, if, as "D" states, "Some people...were made aware...", there was an effect, and the argument is refuted. <BR/><BR/>And this is not pure hypothetical pedantry, as even if no smoker were affected by the warnings, they would still have a valuable real-world effect if they dissuaded non-smokers from taking up the habit.<BR/><BR/>Get it now?Jarznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78748181771399314312009-03-29T10:07:00.000-07:002009-03-29T10:07:00.000-07:00"Who's to say that people who post here haven't ac..."Who's to say that people who post here haven't accomplished something?"<BR/><BR/>Why the people who post here, because if they had, they would brag about that and not some test they took in 1982.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38661130036783477272009-03-29T08:49:00.000-07:002009-03-29T08:49:00.000-07:00Re: the smoking question. The link doesn't work; a...Re: the smoking question. The link doesn't work; at least not on my crummy computer. So I don't know if I'd be marked wrong but: none of the answers truly refute the hypothesis. (B) is the best of the bad choices.<BR/>I got a 722 on the LSAT in 1978. In other words, I'm an underachiever. Or I had a lucky day.Jim Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912710881278409532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32509677815955665752009-03-29T01:19:00.000-07:002009-03-29T01:19:00.000-07:00MacSweeney said... It's worth noting that most of ...MacSweeney said...<BR/> <BR/>It's worth noting that most of the world's most intelligent scholars in their field have never taken an IQ test, or at least haven't stated it, because they have nothing to prove."<BR/><BR/>Sure they have. It's called the GRE. And they probably know what score they got on it, or at least what their percentile ranking was.<BR/><BR/>"If you guys are so smart, go accomplish something."<BR/><BR/>Who's to say that people who post here haven't accomplished something?Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24387934107053615402009-03-28T23:59:00.000-07:002009-03-28T23:59:00.000-07:00Man, you guys love bragging about your (alleged) I...<I>Man, you guys love bragging about your (alleged) IQs.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, this is a phenomenon on Internet discussion forums in general. Absolutely nobody has anything less than genius level IQ.<BR/><BR/>It's worth noting that most of the world's most intelligent scholars in their field have never taken an IQ test, or at least haven't stated it, because they have nothing to prove. If you guys are so smart, go accomplish something.MacSweeneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7013738478774514982009-03-28T23:53:00.000-07:002009-03-28T23:53:00.000-07:00"Blogger Truth said...Man, you guys love bragging ..."Blogger Truth said...<BR/><BR/>Man, you guys love bragging about your (alleged) IQs."<BR/><BR/>Whereas "Truth" only brags about his belief in loopy conspiracy theories.<BR/><BR/>BTW, how's that water-powered car working out for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29804187955048562832009-03-28T19:18:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:18:00.000-07:00Lover of Wisdom said:"The really important points ...Lover of Wisdom said:<BR/><BR/>"The really important points are the ones from the high-IQ societies that have their own psychometricians figuring out what a 167+ LSAT score might pass for an IQ score."<BR/><BR/>Question:<BR/><BR/>How are you so certain of this? Can you provide a reference citing Mensa's methodology? I notice that they take 95th percentile as the Mensa cutoff for the old SAT, LSAT and GRE. It would be funny if the top 5% of all these groups would all be at the same IQ cutoff as each other and equal to the top 2% of the general population. For instance, I doubt that the SAT pool is as bright on average as the pools of people trying to go to law school or other graduate schools. After all, there should be some winnowing going on in college and it should be the better students that tend to apply to grad school. Maybe Mensa is just being lazy or taking a wild assed guess?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79973916290264726972009-03-28T17:24:00.000-07:002009-03-28T17:24:00.000-07:00Man, you guys love bragging about your (alleged) I...Man, you guys love bragging about your (alleged) IQs.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47821467505542154822009-03-28T15:35:00.000-07:002009-03-28T15:35:00.000-07:00Clem:The Mensa cutoff for the SAT testing populati...Clem:<BR/><BR/>The Mensa cutoff for the SAT testing population is the 95th percentile. The cutoff for the general population is the 98th percent.Lover of Wisdomhttp://carrefoursagesse.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4398825800549036822009-03-28T15:27:00.000-07:002009-03-28T15:27:00.000-07:00"The argument is that the warnings have had no eff..."The argument is that the warnings have had no effect. If some people who were previously unaware of the dangers of smoking were made aware of those dangers through warnings, then it cannot be argued that the warnings have had no effect."<BR/><BR/>I read the argument very similarly, except with a few changes:<BR/><BR/>The argument is that the warnings have had no effect on smokers. If some smokers who were previously unaware of the dangers of smoking were made aware of those dangers through warnings, then it cannot be argued that the warnings have had no effect.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that makes all the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38294020349345925322009-03-28T14:41:00.000-07:002009-03-28T14:41:00.000-07:00As for the Mensa requirment, the poster mistates t...<I>As for the Mensa requirment, the poster mistates the 95th percentile as a score of 167. It is actually 166. From the data above, however, I think an LSAT of 166 may actually equate to an IQ greater than 130.</I><BR/><BR/>Uh, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International" REL="nofollow">Mensa cutoff</A> is 98th percentile. Or is the above just poorly stated?clemhttp://www.hiplikeme.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15978167993982992712009-03-28T13:38:00.000-07:002009-03-28T13:38:00.000-07:00I would agree with anonymous that D is not necessa...<I>I would agree with anonymous that D is not necessarily correct. Just as A does not imply that smokers learned about the dangers of smoking thru warnings, D does not imply that those made aware of the dangers of smoking are themselves smokers.</I><BR/><BR/><I>But D doesn't restrict nor necessarily include members who smoke (it gives no indication); it therefore could include no smokers, in which it would fail to refute the argument. Too pedantic? Or am I missing something else?</I><BR/><BR/>The argument is not, fundamentally, that there are or are not millions of smokers. The argument is that the warnings have had no effect. If some people who were previously unaware of the dangers of smoking were made aware of those dangers through warnings, then it cannot be argued that the warnings have had no effect.<BR/><BR/>Granted, you could argue that <I>every</I> person who was made aware of the dangers of smoking was not and would have never become a smoker, or that <I>every</I> person made aware of the dangers would have smoked anyway, and therefore the warnings were practically useless, but that would indeed be too pedantic. Don't "over-read" the question.tommynoreply@blogger.com