Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: October 94, LR 1, question 24  (Read 1272 times)

Bella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
October 94, LR 1, question 24
« on: May 23, 2007, 06:15:42 AM »
Hi guys, I have another question:

It's from the Power Score supplemental materials.
Why (A) and not (C)? And what type of a flaw is it according to the PS bible?
I thought it's from "some evidence for a theory is taken as the theory is proved"

Thank you in advance

Bella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: October 94, LR 1, question 24
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2007, 09:39:28 AM »
Hi guys, I have another question:

It's from the Power Score supplemental materials.
Why (A) and not (C)? And what type of a flaw is it according to the PS bible?
I thought it's from "some evidence for a theory is taken as the theory is proved"

Thank you in advance

They did not show why the source of the titanium ink had to be from Gutenburg rather than from another person that may have written B-36. 

It only posited a correlation of the data.

Then it runs along and uses the supposed connection as the basis to dispute the contention that someone else wrote B-36.

The words 'solely' and 'single" make (C) fall apart


But what about those "was and was not extremely restricted"? What does is mean. I didn't see anything about any restrictions. It sounds like the type "internal contradiction" according to the PS Bible, but is there a contradiction?

Bernie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: October 94, LR 1, question 24
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2007, 10:36:07 AM »
The way I've always thought of this question is this:

The author concludes that the titanium ink shows that Gutenburg wrote B-36, and shows that the Vinlandian Map may not be a fake as originally thought.

Taking each conclusion individually:

Evidence:  We found Titanium in B-36 and in G's Bible
Conclusion:  So, Gutenburg probably wrote B-36.
Assumption:  Titanium ink was probably used only by Gutenburg.


Evidence:  We found Titanium ink in B-36 and in G's Bible.
Conclusion:  So the Vinland map may have been written in that period, after all.
Assumption:  Titanium ink was probably used by other people as well as Gutenberg.


The argument assumes both that the ink was restricted to Gutenberg and that it was not restricted to Gutenberg.

This argument fits the old saying "you can't have your cake and eat it, too".  If the map isn't a fraud, then other people were using titanium ink and thus someone else may have written B-36.  If only Gutenberg had titanium ink, then the map is probably a fraud (Printers don't make maps; cartographers do).

mr

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • "You're going to cure death? MUAHAHAHA...doubt it"
    • View Profile
Re: October 94, LR 1, question 24
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2007, 10:51:04 AM »
For me, C is wrong because it's ISN'T unreasonable to assume that you can pinpoint date and location because of a single element. I mean, have you watched those nutty guys on History Detectives? They take a single piece shred of evidence and viola, presto chango, we know exactly where the Viking landed in the New World and when.

As for C's relationship to the passage, it's integral to the conclusion that Gutenberg wrote B-36.

'A' gets right to the heart of what Jeffort and Bernie were talking about.

Bella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: October 94, LR 1, question 24
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2007, 04:58:03 PM »
Thank you, guys. It really starts making sense.  If I could eliminate that C answer, then the only left would've been A.  Now I see, why C is incorrect.

Very helpful, thanks!!!