Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Buffyboy)
    You've done more than me!! Haha im scared...

    Which logic book did you read? Can you (or anyone) reccomend any logic matieral on the web maybe..? thankss
    Haha, it sounds like more than it is. The Critical Thinking book is only like 100 pages.

    I'm reading 'Logic An Introductory Course' by W.H. Newton-Smith. Tbh, it's way too complex for what we need and most of it seems totally irrelevant. Doubt I'll finish it :p:.

    Just had a quick Google and this doesn't look too bad but most of it is pretty irrelevant, the 'conditional' section is probably useful though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was originally worried that my paper would be marked and I'd be laughed at for doing badly, but I'm under no illusions, I know I probably won't get into Oxford, I'm aiming for an interview as if I can get to that stage then knowing they consideredme would be amazing!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey did anyone else join in on the Q&A session yesterday? what did u think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Hey did anyone else join in on the Q&A session yesterday? what did u think?

    Hey, I did. I thought it was quite good really. I feel a bit more confident with the essay section now. What did you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Hey did anyone else join in on the Q&A session yesterday? what did u think?
    Essentially, I thought it was very essential. Essentially-speaking of course.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    It wasn't essential
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    Essentially, I thought it was very essential. Essentially-speaking of course.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    It wasn't essential
    Haha! I think someone had a favourite word.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    Essentially, I thought it was very essential. Essentially-speaking of course.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    It wasn't essential
    Lool yeah he did say essentially quite a lot didn't he :p:
    I thought it was mostly an advertising campaign for sucedo, the advice he gave was ok but i knew most of that anyway just from looking at what advice it gives at the front of the paper. And he clearly hadn't really done much research because he didn't even know that the 2008 paper was on the website. And he really did waffle on quite a bit too :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Lool yeah he did say essentially quite a lot didn't he :p:
    I thought it was mostly an advertising campaign for sucedo, the advice he gave was ok but i knew most of that anyway just from looking at what advice it gives at the front of the paper. And he clearly hadn't really done much research because he didn't even know that the 2008 paper was on the website. And he really did waffle on quite a bit too :yes:
    Yes, I agree with the advertising campaign thing. It was like he randomly stopped and began a sales pitch. He did not reply to my email question as well .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wait, so this guy that's charging $1500 for TSA help didn't actually want to help you, but was encouraging you to buy his product? :eek:

    What a world...
    Offline

    1
    its not actually $1500 its like £200-300 still absolutely ridiculus amount of money, and anyone who would pay that needs their head checking! but the guy is pretty smart i emailed him and asked him a few questions he got 12A at a level :/ and 14a* at gcse lol!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trollman)
    its not actually $1500 its like £200-300 still absolutely ridiculus amount of money, and anyone who would pay that needs their head checking! but the guy is pretty smart i emailed him and asked him a few questions he got 12A at a level :/ and 14a* at gcse lol!
    12A's at A level, are you sure lol? Unless he did an extra year or two, that sounds very hard. Also, it isn't grades that make people clever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berlinPPE)
    Hi! I am an international applicant and have never written an essay like this, so if anyone could give me an essay of one of the questions given in he specimen test papers(e.g. the forgiveness one), I would be really happy. I just wrote a few essays but I´ve no possibility to compare... I don´t know whether I shoud state my opinion in my introduction or just in my conclusion and how many arguments to include etc...If I could have a look at one that would be really nice!

    Thanks
    Some one was asking to look at an essay...
    I wrote about
    "Should parking fines be based on the drivers income"
    typed it up as i have to remember how to write with my hands again
    Slighlty shocked - writing an essay in 30 minutes is much more difficult than i thought it would be
    so:
    The reason we tax those with a higher income more is to ensure that the burdens that a tax has on each individual is as equal as possible across the whole distribution of different incomes. By placing an equal burden on each individual we recognize that each individual in society is equally responsible to society regardless of their relative incomes. It follows from this premise that we should treat each member of society as moral equals that when two people of different incomes commit the same crime they are equally responsible. Because they are equally responsible they should receive the same punishment. However the same nominal fine has a larger burden on the poorer person that the richer person. In order to ensure that each person who commits a crime receives the same punishment we must adopt a system where the burden of a punishment for a set crime is the same (just as we do in our tax system). To do this would involve fining rich people a greater sum of money relative to the amount that the rich man is fined.

    I have shown that the same crime should receive different nominal punishments. The second thing to consider is whether the ‘same act’ is synonymous with the ‘same crime’. The answer to this question depends on why people do not pay for a ticket. If the answer to that question is because the ticket costs money which people are not willing to pay then parking your car illegally if you are rich is worse than parking your illegally if you are poor. When you are deciding whether to park illegally or legally the decision would be between whether to be a responsible citizen or whether to save £1:50. Because the value of saving £1:50 to a poor person is greater than the value of saving £1:50 to a rich person, a rich person is more likely to pay for the ticket. By fining poor and rich people equal amounts we are not recognizing the fact that for a rich person to park illegally is a greater crime. This is because the decision to be good for a rich person is that much easier than for a poor person and therefore when a poor person parks legally it is more praise worthy. Conversely when a rich person parks illegally it is more worthy of punishment than when a poor person parks illegally. We should therefore fine rich people more than poor people not to the extent of an equal burden but to a greater burden. It is this analysis of the relative difficulties of certain acts leading to different punishments that accounts for wives who kill abusive husbands not being charged for murder.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trollman)
    its not actually $1500 its like £200-300 still absolutely ridiculus amount of money, and anyone who would pay that needs their head checking! but the guy is pretty smart i emailed him and asked him a few questions he got 12A at a level :/ and 14a* at gcse lol!
    I've no doubt that he's very clever, with those grades, 100% in the TSA, and studying at Oxford, it'd be hard to say he's not.

    I just don't really like how he's abusing his intellectual high ground to farm money off of (mostly) ignorant, and slightly worried applicants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    I've no doubt that he's very clever, with those grades, 100% in the TSA, and studying at Oxford, it'd be hard to say he's not.

    I just don't really like how he's abusing his intellectual high ground to farm money off of (mostly) ignorant, and slightly worried applicants.
    Yeah definitely.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    I've no doubt that he's very clever, with those grades, 100% in the TSA, and studying at Oxford, it'd be hard to say he's not.

    I just don't really like how he's abusing his intellectual high ground to farm money off of (mostly) ignorant, and slightly worried applicants.
    i whole heartidly agree, its not just him though its the company! i really do not think it is fair! I am also curious as to what oxford think of him doing this! if they even know!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah. He is preying and making financial gains out of the naive. I doubt the college would endorse it. Also, he's not even been there for a term - hardly an expert.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alishariati)
    Some one was asking to look at an essay...
    I wrote about
    "Should parking fines be based on the drivers income"
    typed it up as i have to remember how to write with my hands again
    Slighlty shocked - writing an essay in 30 minutes is much more difficult than i thought it would be
    so:
    The reason we tax those with a higher income more is to ensure that the burdens that a tax has on each individual is as equal as possible across the whole distribution of different incomes. By placing an equal burden on each individual we recognize that each individual in society is equally responsible to society regardless of their relative incomes. It follows from this premise that we should treat each member of society as moral equals that when two people of different incomes commit the same crime they are equally responsible. Because they are equally responsible they should receive the same punishment. However the same nominal fine has a larger burden on the poorer person that the richer person. In order to ensure that each person who commits a crime receives the same punishment we must adopt a system where the burden of a punishment for a set crime is the same (just as we do in our tax system). To do this would involve fining rich people a greater sum of money relative to the amount that the rich man is fined.

    I have shown that the same crime should receive different nominal punishments. The second thing to consider is whether the ‘same act’ is synonymous with the ‘same crime’. The answer to this question depends on why people do not pay for a ticket. If the answer to that question is because the ticket costs money which people are not willing to pay then parking your car illegally if you are rich is worse than parking your illegally if you are poor. When you are deciding whether to park illegally or legally the decision would be between whether to be a responsible citizen or whether to save £1:50. Because the value of saving £1:50 to a poor person is greater than the value of saving £1:50 to a rich person, a rich person is more likely to pay for the ticket. By fining poor and rich people equal amounts we are not recognizing the fact that for a rich person to park illegally is a greater crime. This is because the decision to be good for a rich person is that much easier than for a poor person and therefore when a poor person parks legally it is more praise worthy. Conversely when a rich person parks illegally it is more worthy of punishment than when a poor person parks illegally. We should therefore fine rich people more than poor people not to the extent of an equal burden but to a greater burden. It is this analysis of the relative difficulties of certain acts leading to different punishments that accounts for wives who kill abusive husbands not being charged for murder.

    Thanks for posting this, it's nice to see other people's takes. I did a similar essay, though I was wondering if people think it is important to weigh up the administrative costs of implementing a plan like this. It doesn't seem to be very convenient for either the state or the people being fined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagikMonkey)
    Thanks for posting this, it's nice to see other people's takes. I did a similar essay, though I was wondering if people think it is important to weigh up the administrative costs of implementing a plan like this. It doesn't seem to be very convenient for either the state or the people being fined.
    Maybe but the State would probably enjoy higher revenues from this system as richer people would be charged more so as to have more of an impact. Which would ultimately more than make up for the administrative costs of implementing the scheme.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Maybe but the State would probably enjoy higher revenues from this system as richer people would be charged more so as to have more of an impact. Which would ultimately more than make up for the administrative costs of implementing the scheme.
    Fair point, though the idea still seems to have a lot of logistical problems. For example:

    How is income calculated? Net/gross income from the year preceding the offence might seem reasonable (if very hard to ascertain), but what if the person's income has fallen considerably in the last month (e.g. pay cut, unemployment)? Using records from the last tax year would have a similar problem.

    What if multiple people use the same car? For example, what if a parent who illegally parks then claims that their son/daughter was driving at the time in order to reduce their liability?

    I think it's a good idea in theory rather than in practice.
    Offline

    1
    One argument for is that we already collect government revenue according to income - ie tax which has thresholds so high earners pay proportionatly more tax? I knw it's very different to fines but I think it would be a point I would consider, on the other hand u would also argue why would one crimes punishment be based on income when many others are not? Again you could argue that our judiciary system takes into account circumstances I.e people get different sentences for
    comparable
    crimes so why not do the same with parking?

    Sorry if that doesn't make sense I types that on my phone lol
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.