Law School Discussion

MASTER RC LIST...GO!!!

Re: MASTER RC LIST...GO!!!
« Reply #190 on: June 13, 2006, 09:45:49 PM »
Definitely the RC from the first section about "which change would the author most support" is stopping speculative jumps.  I specifically remember thinking it might be the financial aid answer but could find no answer even suggesting a requirement/change in policy.

In the last paragraph, he specifically suggested a legal aid foundation for grants for computer technology.

Re: MASTER RC LIST...GO!!!
« Reply #191 on: June 13, 2006, 09:53:08 PM »
Definitely the RC from the first section about "which change would the author most support" is stopping speculative jumps.  I specifically remember thinking it might be the financial aid answer but could find no answer even suggesting a requirement/change in policy.

In the last paragraph, he specifically suggested a legal aid foundation for grants for computer technology.

But he didnt suggest that use of the technology must be stopped until the foundation was created, just that the foundation shoudl be created.

Re: MASTER RC LIST...GO!!!
« Reply #192 on: June 13, 2006, 09:59:50 PM »
Definitely the RC from the first section about "which change would the author most support" is stopping speculative jumps.  I specifically remember thinking it might be the financial aid answer but could find no answer even suggesting a requirement/change in policy.

In the last paragraph, he specifically suggested a legal aid foundation for grants for computer technology.

But he didnt suggest that use of the technology must be stopped until the foundation was created, just that the foundation shoudl be created.

yes, that's true, but I think the question was asking "what would the author agree with?". Therefore, the answer doesn't have to be something the author has explicitly mentioned fully. It involves taking something the author said a logical step further. Even though the "don't make speculative jumps" makes way more sense, I'm not entirely sure the author mentioned it as something he or she highlighted as a concern. I guess it's implicit (why recreate something that is potentially untrue?)- but allow me to, um, speculate.

 I am definitely making a leap here, but the 'crime reconstruction' thing may actually involve speculative leaps that the author didn't mention. He or she never said the recreation has to be totally accurate (as in, only one rendition), it just can't be unfairly persuasive. What if someone made like 3 different digital recreations of a scene in order to point out three different ways the same event could have happened, all drawing from the same evidence. Ah, I know I'm going way off here, but it's something I think about from watching too much CSI! They always change their recreations throughout the show...

Re: MASTER RC LIST...GO!!!
« Reply #193 on: June 13, 2006, 10:10:43 PM »

... actually he explicitly said that we should make sure to analyze the data used to make sure the presentations arent based on speculative biased data.. he said this at the begining of the last paragraph.


polkadot

Re: MASTER RC LIST...GO!!!
« Reply #194 on: June 13, 2006, 10:13:40 PM »
any more ideas about what the missing maize questions were?

also, on the computer "main point" question, I remember debating but ultimately settling on one that was somthing like "by being perfected through some rules, computer simulation can be useful in trials"