Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Law Firm Directory
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
🚨 Reed Smith has just announced its Direct Training Contract route!
The deadline is
20th June
.
👉
Read Becca's announcement post here
📝
Apply directly here
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ashwright" data-source="post: 189937" data-attributes="member: 29878"><p>I am far from a Watson Glaser professional but I shall share my two pence (partly as practice!)</p><p></p><p>WARNING - this lengthy response might be entirely wrong; if so, I apologise in advance and would appreciate any corrections.</p><p></p><p>Statements -</p><p></p><p>When approaching the statements, I like to start by (1.) doing a venn diagram and/or (2.) taking the contrapositive.</p><p></p><p>With this statement, you learn two things: (1.) there's a class (aka group) of people called 'members of a diplomatic service'. (2.) all intelligent pupils are part of that class. This is a good statement to do a venn diagram for - big circle is the class - 'members of a diplomatic service'; within this circle, draw a circle to represent members - 'all intelligent pupils'.</p><p></p><p></p><p>With this, I like taking the contrapositive - this is a fancy way of flipping the statement back-to-front, then negating whatever was positive and vice-versa. It's a good thing to do - I definitely encourage having a look into it if you haven't. The contrapositive would be - "All intelligent pupils are not normal pupils". This is your learning number three.</p><p></p><p>Putting these three 'learnings' together, you can now attack the conclusions pretty quickly because you've got a better understanding.</p><p></p><p><strong>Proposed Conclusion 1 - No member of a diplomatic service is a normal pupil.</strong></p><p>Here, I like to look at learning 1+2 (or just statement 1) - the <u>only</u> thing you know is that intelligent people ARE part of the class of 'members of a diplomatic service'. Now, we do know that per learning 3, intelligent students are not normal. BUT - there is nothing stating that intelligent people are the <strong>ONLY </strong>people who are part of the diplomatic service; we know nothing about who else might be part of that class. In other words, the class is not specified as being exclusive to intelligent pupils - there may well be be normal people + intelligent pupils. Therefore, the proposed conclusion DOES NOT follow.</p><p></p><p><strong>Proposed Conclusion 2 - Every intelligent pupil takes an active role in the service.</strong></p><p>Immediately, one word should jump out - 'active'. Even if the sentence is true regardless of that adjective, the word is <u>not</u> used in the statements therefore we know nothing about it. Therefore, DOES NOT follow.</p><p></p><p><strong>Proposed Conclusion 3 - The normal pupil cannot be an active member of a diplomatic service.</strong></p><p>See my response to Proposed Conclusion 2</p><p></p><p><strong>Proposed Conclusion 4 - Some members of a diplomatic service are abnormal pupils.</strong></p><p>Look at Statement 1 again. We know that all intelligent pupils are members of a diplomatic service. We also know, from taking the contrapositive of Statement 2, that all intelligent pupils are not normal. Therefore, since all intelligent pupils are abnormal + all intelligent pupils are members of the diplomatic service, we can say that conclusion FOLLOWS.</p><p></p><p>Fun thing to remember about the Watson Glaser - words like 'some' do not have their everyday meaning. When we normally say 'some', we just mean a portion of a whole. In the Watson Glaser, 'some' can mean everything from 1 to everything. So, even if the only people who comprised the diplomatic service were intelligent pupils, proposed conclusion 4 would still follow, given that 'some' can mean 'all'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ashwright, post: 189937, member: 29878"] I am far from a Watson Glaser professional but I shall share my two pence (partly as practice!) WARNING - this lengthy response might be entirely wrong; if so, I apologise in advance and would appreciate any corrections. Statements - When approaching the statements, I like to start by (1.) doing a venn diagram and/or (2.) taking the contrapositive. With this statement, you learn two things: (1.) there's a class (aka group) of people called 'members of a diplomatic service'. (2.) all intelligent pupils are part of that class. This is a good statement to do a venn diagram for - big circle is the class - 'members of a diplomatic service'; within this circle, draw a circle to represent members - 'all intelligent pupils'. With this, I like taking the contrapositive - this is a fancy way of flipping the statement back-to-front, then negating whatever was positive and vice-versa. It's a good thing to do - I definitely encourage having a look into it if you haven't. The contrapositive would be - "All intelligent pupils are not normal pupils". This is your learning number three. Putting these three 'learnings' together, you can now attack the conclusions pretty quickly because you've got a better understanding. [B]Proposed Conclusion 1 - No member of a diplomatic service is a normal pupil.[/B] Here, I like to look at learning 1+2 (or just statement 1) - the [U]only[/U] thing you know is that intelligent people ARE part of the class of 'members of a diplomatic service'. Now, we do know that per learning 3, intelligent students are not normal. BUT - there is nothing stating that intelligent people are the [B]ONLY [/B]people who are part of the diplomatic service; we know nothing about who else might be part of that class. In other words, the class is not specified as being exclusive to intelligent pupils - there may well be be normal people + intelligent pupils. Therefore, the proposed conclusion DOES NOT follow. [B]Proposed Conclusion 2 - Every intelligent pupil takes an active role in the service.[/B] Immediately, one word should jump out - 'active'. Even if the sentence is true regardless of that adjective, the word is [U]not[/U] used in the statements therefore we know nothing about it. Therefore, DOES NOT follow. [B]Proposed Conclusion 3 - The normal pupil cannot be an active member of a diplomatic service.[/B] See my response to Proposed Conclusion 2 [B]Proposed Conclusion 4 - Some members of a diplomatic service are abnormal pupils.[/B] Look at Statement 1 again. We know that all intelligent pupils are members of a diplomatic service. We also know, from taking the contrapositive of Statement 2, that all intelligent pupils are not normal. Therefore, since all intelligent pupils are abnormal + all intelligent pupils are members of the diplomatic service, we can say that conclusion FOLLOWS. Fun thing to remember about the Watson Glaser - words like 'some' do not have their everyday meaning. When we normally say 'some', we just mean a portion of a whole. In the Watson Glaser, 'some' can mean everything from 1 to everything. So, even if the only people who comprised the diplomatic service were intelligent pupils, proposed conclusion 4 would still follow, given that 'some' can mean 'all'. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…