Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Waiting for Those Letters

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assests were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owned by low-income households, high household debet levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.

Can you explain the hole in the argument?

I narrowed it down to three:
a) prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enoguh debt that they had begun to decrease spending.
b) the total value of the economy's household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households
c) low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.

Studying for the LSAT / PT 12 - Section 1 LR 16
« on: November 22, 2007, 11:04:42 AM »
I do not understand how the correct answer weakens the argument:

Salmonella is a food-bourne microorganism that can cause intestinal illness. The illness is sometimes fatal, especially if not identified quickly and treated. Conventional Salmonella tests on food samples are slow and can miss unusual strains of the microrganism. A new test identifies the presence or absence of Salmonella by the one peice of genetic material common to all strains. Clearly, publich health officials would be well advised to replace the previous Salmonella test with the new test.

Which on of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?
I got to the correct answer by way of elimination:
b) the new tests detects the presence of salmonella at levels that are too low to pose a health risk to people.

What is the deal with the preptests 7-11 being so difficult? They are major confidence killers?
I could NOT do the first 4!!
Can anyone give me suggestions for this following game?
A science student has exactly four flasks- 1,2,3, and 4- orginally containing a red, blue, a green and an orange chemical, respectively. An experiment consists mixing exactly two of these chemicals together by completely emptying the contents of one of the flaks into another of the flasks. The following conditions apply:

The product of an experiment cannot be used in further experiments.
Mixing the contents of 1 and 2 produces a red chemical.
Mixing the contents of 2 and 3 produces an orange chemical.
Mixing the contents of 3 with the contents of either 1 or 4 produces a blue chemical.
Mixing the contents of 4 with the contents of either 1 or 2 produces a green chemical.

Studying for the LSAT / Principal question from PT 11- sec 2 LR 6
« on: November 21, 2007, 06:34:48 PM »
Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore, governments should ban all advertisements that promote smoking.

Which of the following principles, if established, most strongly supports the argument?

I narrowed it down to two:
a) advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health.

e) advertisemnts should only promote healthy products.

My problem w/ answer choice E was with the word "only." Couldn't this answer choice have include products that are not necessarily healthful but that just have neatural effect and thus are not a health hazard?? I just think the this answer choice was too limiting.

And, what's wrong with answer choice A???

Studying for the LSAT / PT 10 section 4 LR 24
« on: November 21, 2007, 01:18:20 PM »
When the rate of inflation exceeds the rate of return on the most profitable investment available, the difference between these two rates will be the percentage by which, at a minimum, the value of any investment will decline. If in such a circumstance the value of a particular investment declines by more than a percentage, it must be true thatt__________.

Which of the following logically completes the argument?

a. the rate of inflation has risen
b. the investment in question is becoming less profitable
c. the investment in question is less profitable than the most profitable investment available.
d. the rate of return on the most profitable investment available had declined
e. there has been a change in which particular investment happens to be the most profitable available

If you can explain what the stimlus is saying that would be of great help.

Can you explain this one?
The Gulches is an area of volcanic rock that is gashed by many channels that lead downhill from the site of a prehistoric glacier to ariver. The channels clearly were cut by running water. It was once accepted as fact that the cutting occured gradually, as the glacier melted. But one geologist theorized that the channels were cut in a short time by an enormous flood. The channels do show phyisical evidence of having been formed quickly, but the flood theory was orginally rejected b/c scientists knew of no natural process that could melt so much so quickly. Paradoxically, today the scientific community accepts the flood theory even though scientists still do not know of a process that can melt so much ice so quickly.

Which one most resolves the paradox in the passage???

( I got to the correct by process of elimination but do not understand how it resolves the paradox):
d. scientists now believe that the prehistoric glacier dammed a scource of water, created a huge lake in the process, and then retreated.

Studying for the LSAT / LR question from PT 9 - Section 4 #20
« on: November 20, 2007, 07:22:31 PM »
I usually get this question type right. But, I guess there's a first ( and hopefully a last) for everything...

Of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are false alarms. This situation causes an enormous and dangerous drain on increasingly scarce public resources. Each false alarm wastes an average of 45 minutes of police time. As a result police are consistently taken away from responding to other legitimate calls for service, and a disproportionate share of police services goes to alarm system users, who are mostly business and affluent homeowners. However, burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries, so the only acceptable solutiion is to fine burglar alarm system owners the cost of 45 minutes of police time for each false alarm their systems generate.

The statement that burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries play which one of the following roles in the argument?

I was able to narrow it down to two answer choices:

a: it justifies placing more restrictions on owners of burglar alarms than on owners of car alarms

c: (CORRECT ANSWER) it provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternative to the proposal of filing owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms.

Studying for the LSAT / PT 7 Section 1 LR #10
« on: November 20, 2007, 10:26:00 AM »
Can you explain this one to me? I was only able to narrow it down to three.

A large group of hyperactive children whose regular diets included food containing large amounts of additives was observed by researchers train to assess the presence or absence of behavior problems. The children were then placed on a low-additive diet for several weeks, after which they were observed again. Orginally nearly 60% of the children exhibited behavior problems; after the change of diet, only 30% did so. On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that food additives can contribute to behavior problems in hyperactive children.

The evidence cited fails to establish the conclusion because:
(a) there is no evidence that the reduction in behavior problems was proportionate to the reduction in food- additive intake

(b) there is no way to know what changes would have occured w/o change of diet, since only children who changed to a low-additive diet were studies- This is the correct answer. Is this saying that the flaw with this experiment was that there was no control group???

(d) there is no evidence that the behavior of some of the children was unaffected by additives

PT 27 Section 3 Questions 7-12:

I did this game without much deductions. Was that the wrong approach for this type of game??? The only deductions I thought of were that there had to be at least 2 female snakes and at least one female lizard.

A zoo's repitle house has a straight row of excatly five consecutive habitats- numbered 1 through 5 from left to right- for housing exactly seven reptiles- four snakes and three lizards. Five of the reptiles are females and two are male. The reptiles must be house at follows.
          No habitat houses more than two reptiles.
          No habitat houses both a snake and a lizard.
          No female snake is housed in a habitat that is immediately next to a hibtat  housing a male lizard.

Studying for the LSAT / Can anyone explain the game from June 1998
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:52:51 PM »
I could not answer questions #13, 14 and 18. I think I am missing some deductions here.

For number 13, the question make it seem that the answers needs to have the complete list of people in the given sport.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6