Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: lawguru on December 04, 2004, 11:23:59 AM

Title: LR sections
Post by: lawguru on December 04, 2004, 11:23:59 AM
can we start discussing this section yet?
my first LR killed me; it was long, and i couldn't finish.
i thought the experimental LR was easier. hence, i am dying to go thru some questions to decide whether i should cancel or not.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: strouse on December 04, 2004, 11:25:47 AM
How is it you know which was the experimental?  I took in Oct., but I keep seeing here people thinking they know which it was.  I don't see how that is possible.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: legallyliz on December 04, 2004, 12:17:13 PM
i was told from testmasters that the experimental has typically been in the first 3 sections.  also, everyone's experimental is in the same section (ie: section 3 in the oct 04 test).  so if you got two RC sections, one was in section 1-3 and the other one was in section 4 or 5, then you can probably assume that the RC section in the earlier section is the experimental. 

you can also confirm this with others who've taken the test what section was experimental, since there are several versions of the test and not everyone gets the same experimental. 
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawyertosky on December 04, 2004, 12:19:05 PM
please wait for 3 more hours.
-----------------------------------

 Please READ BEFORE POSTING specifics about Dec04 exam!
« on: Today at 03:02:08 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case no one else has mentioned it again recently, test takers in the far east (e.g. Japan, Korea, Austalia) will not have taken the exam tomorrow by the time we in the US have finished and are ready to start discussing it and rehashing and reconstructing various questions and answers on this and other internet boards.

The possibility that those overseas could use this for unfair advantage was mentioned back in October, but only after it was too late. Some test takers in Asia admitted having access to valuable info before the test because of this. I would consider it a given that some folks on the other side of the Pacific will be cruising this board for hints, especially given the discussion it generated last time (people joking about flying to Japan to test and whatnot). But they can't exploit this opportunity unless we make it available to them. And realistically, someone who posts info about the exam before all have tested is in just as much violation of LSAT rules as is anyone who would seek and use that info.

So please keep this in mind, and strongly consider postponing any specific discussion of games, questions, or answers until around 6:00pm Eastern time, when those in Asia/Australia will have started the exam for the most part. Just a suggestion in the interest of keeping things as fair for everyone as possible. Thanks.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: strouse on December 04, 2004, 12:28:12 PM
i was told from testmasters that the experimental has typically been in the first 3 sections.  also, everyone's experimental is in the same section (ie: section 3 in the oct 04 test).  so if you got two RC sections, one was in section 1-3 and the other one was in section 4 or 5, then you can probably assume that the RC section in the earlier section is the experimental. 

you can also confirm this with others who've taken the test what section was experimental, since there are several versions of the test and not everyone gets the same experimental. 

Ok, I see the logic there.  People make it sound like they know for sure, but there really is no way to be cerain, except of course if the scenarion you discussed with the first three sections is in fact always true.  Thanks for clarifying for me. 
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 12:28:56 PM
"
Section 1 LR was really tough.  I ran out of time with 3 questions blank, which, in 40 or so timed practice sessions, had never happened to me.  I destroyed the logic games and found RC to be pretty standard.  I remember the other two LRs being fairly standard.  #3 I finished with no extra time, whereas #5 I finished with some time left.  "

i agree completely with this, although i was able to finish the first lr section(rushed though).  i absolutely rocked the games, i finished with literally over 10 minutes left.  rc wasnt so bad, the aboriginal passage was the only one that gave me some trouble. but damn, the lr sucked for some reason though.  too bad its looking like the 3rd section is experimental because it was definitely easier than the first lr section.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lookwhois on December 04, 2004, 12:33:47 PM
"
Section 1 LR was really tough.  I ran out of time with 3 questions blank, which, in 40 or so timed practice sessions, had never happened to me.  I destroyed the logic games and found RC to be pretty standard.  I remember the other two LRs being fairly standard.  #3 I finished with no extra time, whereas #5 I finished with some time left.  "

i agree completely with this, although i was able to finish the first lr section(rushed though).  i absolutely rocked the games, i finished with literally over 10 minutes left.  rc wasnt so bad, the aboriginal passage was the only one that gave me some trouble. but damn, the lr sucked for some reason though.  too bad its looking like the 3rd section is experimental because it was definitely easier than the first lr section.

glad to see that i'm not the only one who believes LR#1 was tough as hell
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 04, 2004, 12:37:56 PM
LR # 1 was the most difficult lr I've taken.  I've never been so uncertain on so many.  It seemed like on a couple there just wasn't a clear answer....
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 12:38:37 PM
You can tell the experimental with 99.9% accuracy if you count up the questions.  Normally it added up to 101, but the testmakers are evidently reducing the number to 100.  The .1% showed up in October (as it was the first test with 100 questions intended to be scored) and was a very surprising occurrence.

1. Historically, the experimental section has ALWAYS been in 1,2,3.
2. I had 3 LR's (s1,3,5); therefore 1 LR section is experimental.
3. Between 1 and 3, the section thats add up to 100 or 101 are the real ones.  If it adds up to 99, try again.

To be 100% certain about the experimental, you need to ask a buddy.  The LSAT experimental section is always the same section.  Section 3 was one of my neighbor's 2 LG's.  Section 3 was one of my 3 LR's.  Therefore, Section 3 is it.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: steves on December 04, 2004, 12:50:04 PM
I struggled with the first logical reasoning section as well. I have been testing well (in the high 160s) and have been finishing each section with 5 minutes remaining. However, on today's test I didn't finish the first LR section.Are you sure the first one was not experimental? I got stuck on question 12...something about Dioxides?

My line up was the following:
Logical Reasoning
Reading Comp
Logical Reasoning
Logic Games
Logical Reasoning
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 12:53:06 PM
at least it seems like most people found lr 1 to be tough.  im just pissed though, i was absolutely destroying my latest prep tests, the four i took before this test were all between 177-180.  i did a shitload of assumption questions as well and got them all right.  but for some reason i just wasnt sure about a lot of the lr questions on the real thing.  i feel a bit better than i did after the oct test, but i dont think i did quite as well as i had hoped. 
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: steves on December 04, 2004, 12:57:26 PM
It seemed like there were a lot of assumption, strengthen / weaken in the first LR section. Any other general observations? Do you remember any of the specific questions?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 12:59:02 PM
a lot of weird principle questions, like:

principle:
example:
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: RocketBot on December 04, 2004, 01:00:33 PM
linden, i had the exact same experience as you.  RC+LG, no problem at all.  i was able to finish the first LR section in time, but i didn't feel like i did well (i usually get only 1 or 2 wrong in LR).  i've been testing 170-175 as well, so we'll see how it goes!!  i also got my best score ever on thursday, which was a bit scary, as i didn't want to be too confident going in.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Scampura on December 04, 2004, 01:01:31 PM
I feel like I must've taken a different test. Everybody's talking about that really hard 26-question LR section, but that section was by far my best one. I answered every single question and was able to justify all my answers. And because it was the first section I took, it gave me a boost of confidence going into the remaining sections.

By contrast my RC and AR were just...abortions. I got really flustered by the passage on the Hippocratic Oath, and in games I realized halfway through the easy linear game that I'd miswritten a rule, which completely freaked me out. Not only did I have to redo most of the game from the 1st question, but the frustration carried through the rest of the section and I couldn't think clearly. Didn't even get to start the fourth game.

My average preptest score has been around 168, but I'm afraid today's games brought me down to 162-165.

Blah.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 01:04:16 PM
Actually LR Bible says that there will likely be an increase in principle questions. Some of these are very hard and you cant just use your intuition. Sometimes the answer is in the contrapositive. Its weird though I actually thought the second LR was harder but everyone is saying the first was. Maybe I just had more intensity during the first. RC was not too bad. The main thing with RC is that I understood the passages.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 01:05:10 PM
I've been scoring around 165-168 on my practice lsats. I think I hit that range as long as the scale isn't ridiculous.
lr1 was tough, lr2 easy, rc medium-tough, lg easy. Overall the scale will probably be about the same as october i think.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: chipmonkee on December 04, 2004, 01:06:52 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only person who found the LR section a bit frustrating!  I also found the RC and LG to be breezy...but the LR seemed to be from another planet!  I'm glad it's over, but not sure whether to register for February. :-\  I was averaging 161-169 on my practice tests, but am completely unsure about what cards will be dealt my way.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: steves on December 04, 2004, 01:07:22 PM
Trying to decide whether or not to cancel...My last prep test was a 168. I was shooting for a 170. I think it depends on which section was experimental. Maybe you can add to the outline I started below, so we can try to determine which LR was experimental...BTW, I am really brain dead right now...anyone else?

Section 1: Logical Reasoning
General Observations:
- There seemed to be a lot of strengthen / weaken questions
- I think there were only 24 questions in this section
Specific Observations / Recollections
- Problem 12. I got stuck on this problem. It was about dioxides
- Question 11, was C

Section 2: Reading Comprehension
Passages:
1. Constitutional Rights of Canadian Aborigines
2. The Evolution of Lichen Fungi
3. Hippocratic Oath
4. ?

Section 3: Logical Reasoning
General Observations:
- The emphasis was on principle questions, logical flaw, and paradox.
- I think there were 25 or 26 questions
Specific Observations:
- There was a problem about sea turtles getting stuck in shrimp nets   

Section 4: Logic Games
1. Sequencing game…Patterson has 5 meetings and workout 1:00, 2:00….   
2. Sequencing Game...Chess Game
3. Country X, Y, and Z export a bunch of fruit. Distribute the fruit to the countries

Section 5: Logical Reasoning:
General Observations:
- Again there seemed to be an emphasis on logical flaw, paradox and assumption
- I believe there 25 or 26 questions
Specific Observations / Recollections:
- There was a question about the ascetic ideal of Monks
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 01:11:03 PM
Huh?  You had an experimental arguments section?

My test was:

Reading Comp
Arguments
Reading Comp
---break---
Arguments
Games
---Writing sample---


So the reading comp was the experimental.. "still" waiting for my email from princeton review to tell me which one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 01:12:21 PM
Actually that is what worried me coming into the test. I was concerned that I might be more risk averse and choose many of the sucker choices. When you are prepping you don't really feel that accountable for your score. You can take many preptests and say ok the best one is indicative of my ability.
Some answer choices the right answer does not sound too pretty and you have to make that intuitive leap and see that it is still right ( with all the convoluted sentence structure - some, not all)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Ella Mae on December 04, 2004, 01:15:53 PM
Thank you all - I was actually left shaking by the break after the two LR sections.  The first one threw me which set me off down a dark and lonely road, the third one was not much better, and I was convinced it was all over.  Imagine my joy when I came across yet another LR after the break.  As sick as it is, misery loves company and man, am I glad to see y'all... ;)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: steves on December 04, 2004, 01:18:42 PM
So let's get this straight...The 1st Logical Reasoning / Arguments section was experimental?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 01:19:28 PM
yeah I couldn't imagine 3 LR sections. That is crazy.....
I was really happy that LG was last because a bad LG in the begginning or middle of the test really throws me off.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: SMarie on December 04, 2004, 01:23:48 PM
"The games were a joke."  Am I the only person on this board who just does not get logic games?  I guessed on over half of the questions in that section, the first LR was the hardest I have seen on ANY test.  I still had four left when time had ended.  I thought the RC was fairly easy except that science passage killed me.

All in all, I think this test will ruin my chances at gaining admission to any law school, including third or fourth tier schools.  It really sucks, especially when I heard little 22 or 23 year punks in my room saying that weren't even sure they WANTED to go to law school.

Yes, I am bitter and I am 32.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 01:25:22 PM
"There was a question about the ascetic ideal of Monks"

Did you have for an answer something to the extent of "They are an unrepresentative sample"?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: SMarie on December 04, 2004, 01:26:46 PM
I picked that answer because the people to which they were referring were writers, which would not be representative of the entire population
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Ella Mae on December 04, 2004, 01:27:13 PM
Yeah, that is how I answered it. The info was about monks and they made generalizations about all of medievil society from it.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Everyman on December 04, 2004, 01:27:25 PM
"There was a question about the ascetic ideal of Monks"

Did you have for an answer something to the extent of "They are an unrepresentative sample"?

Yep.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: borderlaw on December 04, 2004, 01:28:55 PM
Are you sure about one of the LR's having 26 questions?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 01:34:45 PM
I had at least 1 LR with 26, I think it was the one in section 4
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawyertosky on December 04, 2004, 01:35:39 PM
 Please READ BEFORE POSTING specifics about Dec04 exam!
« on: Today at 03:02:08 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case no one else has mentioned it again recently, test takers in the far east (e.g. Japan, Korea, Austalia) will not have taken the exam tomorrow by the time we in the US have finished and are ready to start discussing it and rehashing and reconstructing various questions and answers on this and other internet boards.

The possibility that those overseas could use this for unfair advantage was mentioned back in October, but only after it was too late. Some test takers in Asia admitted having access to valuable info before the test because of this. I would consider it a given that some folks on the other side of the Pacific will be cruising this board for hints, especially given the discussion it generated last time (people joking about flying to Japan to test and whatnot). But they can't exploit this opportunity unless we make it available to them. And realistically, someone who posts info about the exam before all have tested is in just as much violation of LSAT rules as is anyone who would seek and use that info.

So please keep this in mind, and strongly consider postponing any specific discussion of games, questions, or answers until around 6:00pm Eastern time, when those in Asia/Australia will have started the exam for the most part. Just a suggestion in the interest of keeping things as fair for everyone as possible. Thanks
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: kccole on December 04, 2004, 01:37:01 PM
One of my LR's had 27 questions
Both of my games had 22 questions (why)
My RC had 27 questions

I was quite sure that scetion 2 was experimental, so I literally blew off the last passage. I now know I F**ked up.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 01:38:27 PM
It pisses me off too when the games only have 22 questions.  Games is the only section where I can reliably do very well
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: RocketBot on December 04, 2004, 01:50:38 PM
Quote
After the first section I had to really focus and block my trouble on #1 out of my mind.  Even while I was reading the first RC passage I was thinking about LR.  I did my best to turn it into positive motivation (you slipped up on #1, now you've got to ace the rest of this test).
Man, that was exactly me.  I was hoping it was experimental, so that gave me the drive to not give up and push for the rest of the exam.  I wouldn't be surprised if I got 5 wrong (or more?) :
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: steves on December 04, 2004, 02:01:44 PM
Yeah...I think so...It was a broad generalization from a sample that was not likely to be representative of medieval society at large.

"There was a question about the ascetic ideal of Monks"

Did you have for an answer something to the extent of "They are an unrepresentative sample"?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: steves on December 04, 2004, 02:03:12 PM
Are you sure about one of the LR's having 26 questions?
No
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 02:03:37 PM
Yeah they said that monks were not interested in aesthetics during the middle ages, so no one was interested in aesthetics during the middle ages

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:05:00 PM
What with the question about some substance (i forgot the name) decomposing in a river?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 02:06:58 PM
There were two of them.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 02:08:03 PM
the one about the paper mill waste?

what about the thing about fossils found in a lake bottom? or 95% of fossils are marine fossils? or am i suddenly remembering some old practice test?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 02:08:10 PM
One was about the company in the river and that it might be affecting the fins of some blueray fish or something

The other was a principle question about how if you hire someone to do something for you, THEY"RE the ones who are responsible for anything that goes wrong.. the answer was about parents & their kids
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 02:08:52 PM
the one about the paper mill waste?

what about the thing about fossils found in a lake bottom? or 95% of fossils are marine fossils? or am i suddenly remembering some old practice test?

That one about the fossils was a resolve/explain.. the answer was that they're better preserved under water
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:16:48 PM
yeah paper mill waste - i got it down to 2 and because of time pressure i chose the answer I didnt understand because the other one looked like a sucker choice. Maybe C?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 02:17:53 PM
Did anybody get an LR which compared a car to something else.  I think it might have been a weaken question.  Two of the 5 choices talked about the car and 3 talked about other stuff from the stimulus.  Might have been experimental.  Man, I can't remember *&^%.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:18:38 PM
the blueray fish was an except question - I think a discrepancy one. I cant remember the answers though - maybe D? something like D or E
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 02:20:09 PM
the blueray fish was an except question - I think a discrepancy one. I cant remember the answers though - maybe D? something like D or E

Amazingly, I think I remember putting B on that question.  I can't remember anything about the responses, but I just remember that I spent a lof of time and I crossed out C and D to begin with.

Edit: And it was a question like "Answering which of the following question would explain this phenonomenon, EXCEPT?"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 02:21:51 PM
For some reason the answer choice about blueray fish that sticks out in my mind (but I can't remember if I chose it) was that they didn't account for problems that could be caused by the hormones that are caused by the chemical
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 02:22:38 PM
Did anybody get an LR which compared a car to something else.  I think it might have been a weaken question.  Two of the 5 choices talked about the car and 3 talked about other stuff from the stimulus.  Might have been experimental.  Man, I can't remember sh*t.

the lawnmower question?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: gentoo on December 04, 2004, 02:22:48 PM
First LR was harder for me, 2nd LR was much easier. I had my first LR immediately following my first RC, so I was already pooped from reading, I think thats what contributed the most to my lower score.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:24:16 PM
I think there was one "evaluate the argument" except question - never seen that before.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 02:26:09 PM
For some reason the answer choice about blueray fish that sticks out in my mind (but I can't remember if I chose it) was that they didn't account for problems that could be caused by the hormones that are caused by the chemical

Oh snap I remember my response: it was something about whether the hormone levels affect levels outside of the fish I think.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:35:39 PM
yeah the lawnmower had something to do with the disparity between electrically powered and gasoline powered lawnmowers. Cant remember the answer choices for the life of me but I think it was either a strengthen or weaken question.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 02:37:58 PM
For some reason the answer choice about blueray fish that sticks out in my mind (but I can't remember if I chose it) was that they didn't account for problems that could be caused by the hormones that are caused by the chemical

Oh snap I remember my response: it was something about whether the hormone levels affect levels outside of the fish I think.

Was the question here, why do the fish recover when the paper mill stops running? some of the possibilities had to do with the bias of the research, the river current. etc.

Are we safe in Asia yet? I don't know if I should say what I put for the lawmower one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 02:39:31 PM
yeah the lawnmower had something to do with the disparity between electrically powered and gasoline powered lawnmowers. Cant remember the answer choices for the life of me but I think it was either a strengthen or weaken question.

I was thinking of another question which talked about cars, but since you've brought this question up, I think I put that does the energy required to produce electricity for the lawnmowers outweigh the gas?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 02:41:03 PM
The paper mill question I think I put something about how long it takes the darn to get downstream.

Edit: I would never every say "darn" but LSD would make me say it.  I was unaware that C...R..A...P was a naughty word.  ???
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 02:41:18 PM
I think there was one "evaluate the argument" except question - never seen that before.

That was 'which would be the most helpful to know the answer to, in evaluating the question EXCEPT' or something like that

Those evaluate questions are rare.. and an except one is even rarer.. but not really "new"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:42:22 PM
yeah I am pretty sure I put the river answer for the paper mill question though I did that question very quickly.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: woogu on December 04, 2004, 02:45:16 PM
I  GOT 4 A'S in a row
And then around question 17 or so I got 3 A'S in a row so a total of 7 A's in
the games section

Did anyone get like 8 E's in the Logical Reasoning Section.  For me it was section 1, and my format was LR,RC,LG,LG,LR 

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:46:42 PM
8 E's impossible. The record number of straight answers in the history of the LSAT has been 4. They could break that at any time but I am skeptical that they would go from 4 to 8.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: woogu on December 04, 2004, 02:47:47 PM
NOT 8 E'S IN A ROW JUST 8 IN THE OVERALL SECTION FOR THE LR
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 02:49:44 PM
you had time to tally all the letter choices? 8 seems like a good distribution about 33% of the section.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: seminolaw on December 04, 2004, 02:51:06 PM
ok, concerning the LR section beginning with the lawmower efficiency: 
were the last 4 answers something like B,B,B,E?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 02:51:24 PM
8 E's impossible. The record number of straight answers in the history of the LSAT has been 4. They could break that at any time but I am skeptical that they would go from 4 to 8.

I think that is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm getting a mental picture of some testtaker staring in calm defiance at his answer sheet's EEEEEEEE alignment.  What the f*ck would you do if you saw that you answered eight straight questions with E?  
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: woogu on December 04, 2004, 02:52:09 PM
I know I feel like 8 e's in 1 section is a lot and thats why i was worried about that

TOUGH LR overall
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 02:54:11 PM
i got 4 As in a row too, i guess on the games, which i noticed.

anyone remember the question about art being intrinsic and/or objective.

i think it was assumption, and i put that 'sometimes the value of art is intrinsic"

any thoughts?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 02:55:45 PM
Woogu, there were a lot of Es in what (for you and me) was the fifth section. At least seven, maybe eight or even nine. I didn't try to count them. I think I might have had four Es in a row in that section, but maybe it was 3 of 4. I can't remember...

Definetely a lot of Es in what was our fifth section though.
Title: Advantage China, Australia, India, Japan etc.
Post by: FCTorino on December 04, 2004, 02:57:37 PM
I know I am going to get flak for this posting.
But I feel that all of us are damaging our chances of getting into a good Law school.  Some of us have posted the questions for all to read including the citizens of China, Japan, Australia and India among others.  This gives them a distinctly unfair advantage since they know what to expect for their exams tomorrow.  It is a bit like a study session where the TA hands out the questions for the next day's test.  I urge all of you to not post the questions on this forum.  Ultimately it may be your seat on the line when it comes to you and a foreign student vying for the lone, remaining seat at any of the Law shools.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 03:05:29 PM

anyone remember the question about art being intrinsic and/or objective.

i think it was assumption, and i put that 'sometimes the value of art is intrinsic"

any thoughts?

Yes, I remember that question very fondly.  I loathed that question, especially because i only had about 35 seconds to do it.  I seem to remember that I put B for it, which I think is what your answer was.  I think C had a very similar phrasing but talked about extrinsic.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 03:08:19 PM

anyone remember the question about art being intrinsic and/or objective.

i think it was assumption, and i put that 'sometimes the value of art is intrinsic"

any thoughts?

Yes, I remember that question very fondly.  I loathed that question, especially because i only had about 35 seconds to do it.  I seem to remember that I put B for it, which I think is what your answer was.  I think C had a very similar phrasing but talked about extrinsic.


oh, i distinctly remember my answer being the last one, e.  it was between d and e for me.  d was something like intrinsic art can be objective? 


and for those of you who are worried about us talking about the test b/c of kids in Asia or Australia, they have already taken the test.  they are ahead of us, and so it is now sunday for them.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 03:10:58 PM
they take the test on sunday
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:12:14 PM
I  GOT 4 A'S in a row
And then around question 17 or so I got 3 A'S in a row so a total of 7 A's in
the games section

Did anyone get like 8 E's in the Logical Reasoning Section.  For me it was section 1, and my format was LR,RC,LG,LG,LR 



ME TOO ON GAMES. it freaked me out
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:15:34 PM

anyone remember the question about art being intrinsic and/or objective.

i think it was assumption, and i put that 'sometimes the value of art is intrinsic"

any thoughts?

Yes, I remember that question very fondly.  I loathed that question, especially because i only had about 35 seconds to do it.  I seem to remember that I put B for it, which I think is what your answer was.  I think C had a very similar phrasing but talked about extrinsic.


oh, i distinctly remember my answer being the last one, e.  it was between d and e for me.  d was something like intrinsic art can be objective? 


and for those of you who are worried about us talking about the test b/c of kids in Asia or Australia, they have already taken the test.  they are ahead of us, and so it is now sunday for them.

i'm pretty sure the answer for this was something along the lines of:
the author takes it for granted that..."what is extrinsic cannot be objective"
is this what u were talkin about?

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 03:18:43 PM
well yes thats the question.  but the answer i put specifically said that the assumption was that sometimes art has an intrinsic value.  but now it seems wrong.  oh well.  we'll see in a month.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 03:23:53 PM
mrdino's answer is right
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 03:28:54 PM
yeah thats what I got... and I think that the "tempting" choice was an incorrect reversal or some *** like that - art always has a subjective value or whatever....
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:36:23 PM
anyone remember that very last question on one of the LR sections.. about employers firing employees and the stimulus concluded that employees could get screwed just because of personal differences witha  "supervisor"... it was an assumption Q
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: nochance on December 04, 2004, 03:38:03 PM
yeah I put something like they had to answer questions???  tat was really hard
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 03:39:02 PM
anyone remember that very last question on one of the LR sections.. about employers firing employees and the stimulus concluded that employees could get screwed just because of personal differences witha  "supervisor"... it was an assumption Q

I think i put something to the effect of employer's views will determine the process or employers differ or something like that.  Blah, maybe i should go rest instead of doing LSD while listening to Sgt. Pepper's.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Canuck335 on December 04, 2004, 03:40:12 PM
anyone remember that very last question on one of the LR sections.. about employers firing employees and the stimulus concluded that employees could get screwed just because of personal differences witha  "supervisor"... it was an assumption Q

Yeah, I remember that one...I think I put something to the effect of "only supervisors can discipline employees."  That obviously is not the exact wording, but that's the gist...my mind's a little fuzzy!
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawguru on December 04, 2004, 03:42:14 PM
i picked that too..sth. about how only supervisors can interpret...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:42:46 PM
anyone remember that very last question on one of the LR sections.. about employers firing employees and the stimulus concluded that employees could get screwed just because of personal differences witha  "supervisor"... it was an assumption Q

Yeah, I remember that one...I think I put something to the effect of "only supervisors can discipline employees."  That obviously is not the exact wording, but that's the gist...my mind's a little fuzzy!

ME TOO CANUCK. but i'm not sure..........
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:44:45 PM
the test in asia has started. suckers.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 03:45:34 PM
No doubt last LR answer was b) (about the independent supervisor)

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 03:45:56 PM
I think there was a point of issue question about democratic governments or something....
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:48:04 PM
I think there was a point of issue question about democratic governments or something....

yes. the answer inmy strong opinion was that government's determine (not sure if this is right word) a society's values. there was a TRAP answer choice for this question that i noticed, it mentioend democratic government and one dude didn't state nor imply anthing abt democratic gov't
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: twelvehundred on December 04, 2004, 03:50:05 PM
Anyone remember the LR question about computers?  It was something about how it is difficult to add accessories due to the complexity of setting the jumpers and switches.  It was a weaken question i think.

I narrowed the choices to (1) the manuals supplied by the mfg give instructions re the jumper settings, or (2) computers already come with the accessories and offer free installation.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 03:51:30 PM
accessories and free installation.

If you are getting accessories you dont know how to install, they come with free installation, that is weakening it.

Instructions for the jumpers only covered half of it

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 03:51:56 PM
but wasn't that the point they disagreed about, b/c the one guy said ALL govt's don't benefit artists, but the girl said in democratic govt's they encourage artists to speak against the govt, and so thats the piont they disagreed about.  they didn't disagree whether govt was made up of society's values.  the democratic govt has the values of questioning the govt or something.

tell me if i'm off.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 03:52:35 PM
the answer for that is DEFINITELY computer comes with accessories - this was clear to me.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:53:21 PM
Anyone remember the LR question about computers?  It was something about how it is difficult to add accessories due to the complexity of setting the jumpers and switches.  It was a weaken question i think.

I narrowed the choices to (1) the manuals supplied by the mfg give instructions re the jumper settings, or (2) computers already come with the accessories and offer free installation.

agree with matt.
for sur 100% abt this one
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 03:54:16 PM
They were disagreeing about whether or not a democractic gov't that gives funding produces bad art.  It was an easy question.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 03:55:16 PM
Yes this is the answer to the point of issue question though I dont remember how it was exactly phrased.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: vmersich on December 04, 2004, 03:58:02 PM
At first I was really annoyed with seeing (on this thread) that the first LR wasn't experimental.  But if everyone thought it was rough, then the scale should reflect that, right?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 03:59:39 PM
but wasn't that the point they disagreed about, b/c the one guy said ALL govt's don't benefit artists, but the girl said in democratic govt's they encourage artists to speak against the govt, and so thats the piont they disagreed about.  they didn't disagree whether govt was made up of society's values.  the democratic govt has the values of questioning the govt or something.

tell me if i'm off.

your right. the answer that i thought i chose wasn't that one. memory distortion.... are you sure the first dude said "all" governments? i distinctly remmeber concluding that that Answer choice was a trap tho, the one ur supporting
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:00:40 PM
Anyone remember the answer for the the question that gave the claim that cigarette ads dont contribute to smoking because 4th graders know the brands and only 1% smoke, then asked you to pick the passage with the same faulty logic?

Trust + affinity + personal relationships = "friendships without affinity will not be long lasting"?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: vvorono on December 04, 2004, 04:00:51 PM
children smoking cigs
plant blaming waste company
violent t.v. advertisements
polished spears cavemen
meteor hits earth 100,000 yrs/avg
governor helping only rich
arg-artistic value / govts
fish/stream dioxin
"as they say"
artists extrinsic value
natural resources govt global warming
uv rays cavemen ozone layer
students tuition
wealthy people/stealing artwork
mice bladder/rats bladder
lawnmower electric/gas
monks/aesthetics
fossils preserved land/sea
happiness at work/family personal relationships
growth of wheat/demand up/supply of land low
dem govts morality
computers installation
independent supervisor
larson scheduling conflict/aggressive..supervisor
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:03:18 PM
here's one that i thought was kinda tricky
it was one of those what role does the statemnet play... it was about wheat or some crop... conclusion was that there is going to be a food shortage...... because one wheat farms are operating at maximum efficiency (this was a premise for what i thought was a sub-conclusion ... i cant remember the short sentence) and two population growth.

it was either "subconclusion" or "a phenomenon, the casual argument of which is the conclusion" or something
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:03:29 PM
OK - the answer for the mice bladder is regenerate the cells or something like that - it was a discrepancy question.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: twelvehundred on December 04, 2004, 04:05:08 PM
OK - the answer for the mice bladder is regenerate the cells or something like that - it was a discrepancy question.

I dont think so.  The answer had something to do with another substance in the bladders causing the cancer when mixed with the saccharin.  The other rodent did not have that substance.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 04:07:29 PM
For rat bladder: I said that the mice had a protein in their urine that broke down the poison.
For the Food storage one: I said that it jumped to the conclusion that one possible cause for a phenomenon is the only possible cause.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:08:10 PM
Yes I am telling you 100 percent I got that mouse bladder question right - it was a very basic question. The answer had to do with mice in contrast to rats not being able to absorb the substance.


there was a method of reasoning question in the second LR where the answer was that it was a subsidiary conclusion.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:09:38 PM
ryan - yes thats the right answer for the mice bladder one. I think the substance was sacharine or something...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: vvorono on December 04, 2004, 04:11:36 PM
bladder: definately the answer that involved bladder breaking down whatev
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:12:25 PM
mice bladder and regenerating was an OPPOSITE answer trick...and was wrong.

the right answer was stated by ryan. 

subsidiary conclusion was correct...

for the 4th graders and smoking...it was a really easy answer choice where the results of one thing was generalized to something bigger (or the opposite...i cant remember!) eitherway, the other answer choices seemed trashy.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:12:42 PM
the resolve the paradox except question about tuition
it was either abt faculty salaries or scholarships
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:14:15 PM
lawnmower question: answer was as long as air pollution for the electric mower was less than what it saved.

monks:  they were not a representative sample.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:14:41 PM
the wealthy artwork one was an assumption question I think where the answer was something with wealthy and valuable - the assumpetion was that wealthy people only find valuable artwork pleasing - something like this...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:15:05 PM
Ryan is right about Mice, no doubt.

Does anyone here remember the dioxin question? #12 on one of the sections, I can't remember the specifics, just that it was either b or c.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:15:51 PM
What about the decentralizing question? Large corporation do not always encourage innovation ( >:(), or they aren't maximizing efficency ( :D)?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:16:47 PM
Matt's right about lawn mowers and monks (christ, we agree on every answer -- it'll just come down to who did better on RC)

Brooklyn, the art question was "what is extrinsict can't be objective". Don't know if that is what you mean or not, but that was the right answer.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:16:50 PM
art work was it assumes that wealthy people only want high priced art.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 04:17:17 PM
Dino: the answer was Professor's salary increases. It didn't explain anything since that is not a factor in being able to pay tuition because tuition wouldn't go up unless the number of courses did.

Artwork: I agree with brooklyn, it was something about artwork that is valuable is in high demand.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:18:28 PM
You guys are flat out wrong about the artwork question, hopefully Matt or someone can confirm.

jmr, what was the decentralizing question? What were the other options...think you're wrong on that.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 04:19:19 PM
I think the answer for the decentralization question had something to do with the section leader always being innovative or something like that.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:19:38 PM
maximizing efficiency. They said NOTHING about what corporations encourage and dont encourage. It is just explicitly supported that due to the above reasons in the stimulus efficiency is not maxxed out.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 04:20:20 PM
mice bladder and regenerating was an OPPOSITE answer trick...and was wrong.

the right answer was stated by ryan. 

subsidiary conclusion was correct...

for the 4th graders and smoking...it was a really easy answer choice where the results of one thing was generalized to something bigger (or the opposite...i cant remember!) eitherway, the other answer choices seemed trashy.



the answer was something like, avg number of people younger than 20 years old are watching more tv, so therefore 4th graders are watching more tv.  
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:20:58 PM
Key there: always.  too strong...and simply was not explicitly mentioned.  They talked about overall productivity.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:21:28 PM
Anyone remember what the other options for decentralizing question were? Think I got that question wrong  >:(
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:22:01 PM
Gummi, thank you :)

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:22:19 PM
Shoot. It argued that decentralizing large corporations allowed for maximum efficiency and more innovation because the ppl implementing policies were involved in them and the higher up administration didn't have to worry itself with small details. I think it asked what can be inferred. The only options I remember are:
1. Large corporations do are not maximizing efficiency
2. They aren't (always?) encouraging innovations.
3. Their adminstrators have to deal with "small details"

This is a bad paraphrase and I might have just read the question stem wrong.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:22:39 PM
I think the answer for the decentralization question had something to do with the section leader always being innovative or something like that.

re. decentralizatin question. it was an inference Q correct? i strongly believe the answer was about someone in the central administration works gets daily sh*t from periphery or something

EDIT: i meant number three.. 3 details for sure.
maximizing efficiency was a trap because decentralization is sufficient but by no means necessary (given what was said in the stim)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: TheZooker on December 04, 2004, 04:23:08 PM
artwork was def more valuable = more likely to be stolen

ascetic lifestyle (not aesthetic, big diff) led to unrep sample
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:23:36 PM
I picked the administrators have to deal with small details...opinion is that's wrong?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:24:07 PM
Og good. I picked efficiency. (and 20 yr olds...)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 04:24:32 PM
What about the decentralizing question? Large corporation do not always encourage innovation ( >:(), or they aren't maximizing efficency ( :D)?

Not maximizing efficiency to what they could be.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:25:23 PM
Praetor: Of course i dont know for sure...but that really doesnt even ring a bell. 

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: TheZooker on December 04, 2004, 04:25:43 PM
decentralization = autonomous.  Autonomous = always improve eff.  Answer involved improve eff. 
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:26:22 PM
re. decentralizatin-inference Q

i meant number three.. answer was baout small details for sure.
maximizing efficiency was a trap because decentralization is sufficient but by no means necessary to maximize efficiency/productivity or whatever(given what was said in the stim)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:26:59 PM
I think the administrators + small details was wrong only because that is really one facet of the overall inference, which was that they weren't maximizing efficiency.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:27:16 PM
Yes Gummi this was the right answer - it was a flawed method of reasoning parralel question.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 04:27:50 PM
Damn. I think I screwed that decentralize question up. It specifically mentioned something about autonomous section leaders are always innovative, and I think I might have mixed up a cause/effect type of thing.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 04:28:19 PM
mice bladder and regenerating was an OPPOSITE answer trick...and was wrong.

the right answer was stated by ryan. 

subsidiary conclusion was correct...

for the 4th graders and smoking...it was a really easy answer choice where the results of one thing was generalized to something bigger (or the opposite...i cant remember!) eitherway, the other answer choices seemed trashy.



the answer was something like, avg number of people younger than 20 years old are watching more tv, so therefore 4th graders are watching more tv.  

Yes that was a long one and I think I put A, which is 4th graders watching more tv
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:28:34 PM
Realize now I got decentraliztion wrong...first question I got wrong :( Can only get 8 more wrong assuming same curve as October :(
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:29:21 PM
I think the administrators + small details was wrong only because that is really one facet of the overall inference, which was that they weren't maximizing efficiency.

uh..... your supposed to do that. most stronlgy supported = logically inferred = must be true = doesn't matter whether it's this facet or that facet as long as it must be true
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:29:57 PM
does anyone remember the answer to the meteors and mass extinction question? i think i put that it assumes that for exintinctions for which there is no record of a meteor impact, there was no meteor impact. but i was tempted to put something about if there are many mass extinctions caused by meteor impacts than there is a casual connection between them.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 04:30:53 PM
does anyone remember the answer to the meteors and mass extinction question? i think i put that it assumes that for exintinctions for which there is no record of a meteor impact, there was no meteor impact. but i was tempted to put something about if there are many mass extinctions caused my meteor impacts than there is a casual connection between them.


i put the causal connection thing, but not sure about it
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:31:50 PM
I think the administrators + small details was wrong only because that is really one facet of the overall inference, which was that they weren't maximizing efficiency.

uh..... your supposed to do that. most stronlgy supported = logically inferred = must be true = doesn't matter whether it's this facet or that facet as long as it must be true

i guess thats why i thought it was hard. that's why i am asking about. passage seemed to support both.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: America's Next Top Lawyer on December 04, 2004, 04:32:10 PM
children smoking cigs
plant blaming waste company
violent t.v. advertisements
polished spears cavemen
meteor hits earth 100,000 yrs/avg
governor helping only rich
arg-artistic value / govts
fish/stream dioxin
"as they say"
artists extrinsic value
natural resources govt global warming
uv rays cavemen ozone layer
students tuition
wealthy people/stealing artwork
mice bladder/rats bladder
lawnmower electric/gas
monks/aesthetics
fossils preserved land/sea
happiness at work/family personal relationships
growth of wheat/demand up/supply of land low
dem govts morality
computers installation
independent supervisor
larson scheduling conflict/aggressive..supervisor


My goodness your memory is on point.
for computer installation I put that it comes with free installation. I dont know know if that was the right answer though.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: gvn2fly on December 04, 2004, 04:32:56 PM
does anyone remember the answer to the meteors and mass extinction question? i think i put that it assumes that for exintinctions for which there is no record of a meteor impact, there was no meteor impact. but i was tempted to put something about if there are many mass extinctions caused my meteor impacts than there is a casual connection between them.


i put the causal connection thing, but not sure about it

The first two choices to that question were similar. I picked the choice that said there's no causal connection unless there were many meteor hits leading to mass extinctions.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:34:20 PM
forthe "as they say" application of usage question. i guessed D blindly. someone tell me they remember it being DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: TheZooker on December 04, 2004, 04:34:37 PM
I would wait on the final jury on the decentralization question.  I'm just about positive that one was 'not maximizing efficiency', as the decent. = autonomous = always more efficient.  We shall see...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:34:48 PM
Meteor impact question:

I honestly rushed this question, looking at my stopwatch...and rushed an answer...i cant even remember what i put...i essentially let my brain process it unconsciously and hoped for the best.

I then forgot to come back to it. 

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: AmbitV on December 04, 2004, 04:35:15 PM
Ok one of the few questions that still really bugged me after the test:

In some coastal town (forgot name)in Britain , a recent excavation finds artifacts of European origin.  They conclude that trade between Britain and Europe must have existed in the 7th and 8th centuries.

I think it was a strengthen question.  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: RocketBot on December 04, 2004, 04:35:32 PM
does anyone remember the answer to the meteors and mass extinction question? i think i put that it assumes that for exintinctions for which there is no record of a meteor impact, there was no meteor impact. but i was tempted to put something about if there are many mass extinctions caused my meteor impacts than there is a casual connection between them.


i put the causal connection thing, but not sure about it

That was the only question that I just could not see what was going on.  I had in my head what I thought an answer would be but it wasn't there, so I got tripped up.

as for the intrinsic artistic one, it is definitely that the author takes for granted that evaluating intrinsic merit is objective (or something along those lines)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:36:25 PM
I cant remember exactly but the meteor question had to do with the probability of it happenning just because it happened 100,000 years ago - it was an invalid argument.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:36:50 PM
application of usage was e. "Alls well that ends well" for a ski trip that ends with a broken leg.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:37:08 PM
i remember the always more efficient option.

Simply said, im sure that is a sufficiency vs necessary thing


It is necessary to be decentralized.

However, it is not sufficient, and that answer choice argues for sufficiency.

Which is why i think its wrong.  That centralized are not at maximum efficiency is a no brainer answer and hard to ignore given the issues with the others.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 04:37:31 PM
Ok one of the few questions that still really bugged me after the test:

In some coastal town (forgot name)in Britain , a recent excavation finds artifacts of European origin.  They conclude that trade between Britain and Europe must have existed in the 7th and 8th centuries.

I think it was a strengthen question.  Any thoughts?

Doesn't ring a bell.  Did you have 3 LR's?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 04:39:03 PM
I cant remember exactly but the meteor question had to do with the probability of it happenning just because it happened 100,000 years ago - it was an invalid argument.

Yes, the answer I selected had the word frequency in it.  Essentially it said that its using average frequency to make a specific prediction.  I was pretty sure about that.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:39:28 PM
application of usage = all is well that ends well

the meteor question was "assuming that because something happens at a certain average rate (frequency)  means that you can conclude that it will happen now.

i.e. it hasnt happened in a  million years, its been a million years, so we are due it now...is just bad math. That question was easily prephrased for that type of logic...those type of people who think when there isnt a earthquake in l.a. for 10 years that they are "due".

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: gvn2fly on December 04, 2004, 04:40:25 PM
I cant remember exactly but the meteor question had to do with the probability of it happenning just because it happened 100,000 years ago - it was an invalid argument.

There were two meteor questions. The one you mention, and the other one was about a causal link between meteor impacts and mass extinctions.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 04:40:34 PM
Meteor: The answer was something about "It infers that something will happen soon merely because of a high probability that it will"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:40:54 PM
that kind of reminds me about the question that said something was preserved in lake sediment from a lake that existed  2 mill to 1.5 mill years ago and therefore whatever was preserved (humans?) must have existed between 2 mill to 1.5 mill years ago ? i remember one of the wrong answers was that humans drowned in the lake. another option was that the lake dried up... or something.  
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 04:41:29 PM
application of usage was e. "Alls well that ends well" for a ski trip that ends with a broken leg.

Thats what I put.  If thats correct, I would be very happy because that was a weird question.  Although, was this on the experimental?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:42:11 PM
Ya, some experimental LR are popping up here.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 04:42:30 PM
application of usage was e. "Alls well that ends well" for a ski trip that ends with a broken leg.

Thats what I put.  If thats correct, I would be very happy because that was a weird question.  Although, was this on the experimental?

No. I had games experimental and I had this ?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:42:50 PM
Matt's right on meteors and application usage.

Extinctions I think I messed up, I picked something along the lines of "must have been an extinction for each impact" though worded differently.

Dioxin question was about toxic levels in fish because of chemical plant. Anyone remember what they answered? It was either b or c, although I can't remember what those answers were.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:43:21 PM
governor only rich question I think was an easy point of issue question at the begginning of the section.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: mrdino on December 04, 2004, 04:44:28 PM
I cant remember exactly but the meteor question had to do with the probability of it happenning just because it happened 100,000 years ago - it was an invalid argument.

Yes, the answer I selected had the word frequency in it.  Essentially it said that its using average frequency to make a specific prediction.  I was pretty sure about that.

i agree
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: AmbitV on December 04, 2004, 04:45:06 PM
Ok one of the few questions that still really bugged me after the test:

In some coastal town (forgot name)in Britain , a recent excavation finds artifacts of European origin.  They conclude that trade between Britain and Europe must have existed in the 7th and 8th centuries.

I think it was a strengthen question.  Any thoughts?

Doesn't ring a bell.  Did you have 3 LR's?

Yes I had 3 LR....i was pretty sure this question was in section 5, but if noone remembers it then I must be wrong...

It was a strengthen question and some of the answer choices were like:
1) the town was found to have traded with other towns in Britain
2) Other coastal towns had the same econonmic function as this town.
3) The population in these towns decreased in 7th and 8th centuries.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawguru on December 04, 2004, 04:46:01 PM
hey how bout we setup the games, since i believe lots of people are curious to know about that section!
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:46:15 PM
praetor - the answer for the dioxin question seems to be C - I was also stuck on B or C and chose C which is what Matt chose and he seems to have a large degree of confidence with this one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 04:47:09 PM
Alls well that ends well- It was on the real LR section. I didn't put E though, I think I answered A,B, or C, but I don't remember what the answer was. The question stated that if you use that saying, you can only use it at the end of a statement that agrees with it. Then the stimulus said something about "Which is the contrapositive of the usage of this saying" my answer involved a scientist i think? something like "she can't figure anything out"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:47:28 PM
SOB, I changed it to B at the very last section. Matt you sure?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: melloo653 on December 04, 2004, 04:49:28 PM
the blue gill fish question said something about which one of the following questions would important to answer...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 04:50:24 PM
C was the one with the river in the dioxin question
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 04:50:44 PM
Blue Gill fish, that's it. Anyone remember what answers b and c were?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawguru on December 04, 2004, 04:52:41 PM
crap. i don't even remember that artifact one at all..i finished all the questions on section 5 tho'. um...what was the stimulus?

i remember the one on taxation. how the govt reduces tax during a surpluis; and then reduces it again with a deficit. resolve/explain?
is that prob. on the experimental?

- for the first section of LR, the first question, to find main conclusion. sth liek the govt is not doing something right, or maybe it was the corporation? i am losing my memory.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: kccole on December 04, 2004, 04:54:41 PM
that kind of reminds me about the question that said something was preserved in lake sediment from a lake that existed  2 mill to 1.5 mill years ago and therefore whatever was preserved (humans?) must have existed between 2 mill to 1.5 mill years ago ? i remember one of the wrong answers was that humans drowned in the lake. another option was that the lake dried up... or something.  

Was that the fossilized sediments question?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 04:56:25 PM
Dioxin question was built on my assumption about the question stem.


I think i misread it.

So no, not sure about that one.

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: twelvehundred on December 04, 2004, 05:01:43 PM
the blue gill fish question said something about which one of the following questions would important to answer...

Yeah, the blue gill question stem was, "all of the following would be important questions to answer, EXCEPT"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: TheZooker on December 04, 2004, 05:01:53 PM
Dioxin Q was hardest question on the test.  I put unclear hormone -> defect understanding, because of stimulus leap in conclusion.  Could be wrong, though...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Edward1 on December 04, 2004, 05:02:50 PM
the one about the f-ing cod with the screwed up fins and 3 percent -- the question was which one was no trelavant question to ask...and it was like ...*&^% i cant remember
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 05:03:08 PM
Yeah zooker, I remember reading that question and being like "damn, this is a female dog".
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 05:03:36 PM
what did you guys get for the bluegill question
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawguru on December 04, 2004, 05:04:09 PM
do you remember what the dioxin question was exactly? have a vague idea of it.
as for the "as one said", u picked all is well tat ends well. what was the context, do you remember, matt?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Question on December 04, 2004, 05:06:04 PM
the one about the f-ing cod with the screwed up fins and 3 percent -- the question was which one was no trelavant question to ask...and it was like ...sh*t i cant remember

Humans contract problems from...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 05:07:41 PM
the one about the f-ing cod with the screwed up fins and 3 percent -- the question was which one was no trelavant question to ask...and it was like ...sh*t i cant remember

Humans contract problems from...


Thats what I put.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Cory on December 04, 2004, 05:09:36 PM
I saw someone mention the fossil discrepancy question way back, but no one else posted about it.

I had the answer down to A which was about the sun drying out bones and water harming them, or C, which was about the silt preserving the marine fossils. I ultimately went with the one about the sun destroying the bones because the silt to me doesn't resolve why there are not so many land fossils, especially given the huge numbers in which they outnumbered them. It explained why there were marine fossils, but didn't do anything to resolve the paradox of why there are so few land fossils. The info about the sun destroying bones would certainly explain the land animals lack of fossils, but then again, it doesn't explain why there are so many marine fossils...unless you're assuming that a certain percentage of remains should be fossilized if there are no extenuating circumstances, which is what I was thinking. Anyone else?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 05:11:08 PM
Yes this is the answer - I think this was a discrepancy question - Knowing whether it would effect humans health was an after the fact irrelevancy.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 05:13:48 PM
I saw someone mention the fossil discrepancy question way back, but no one else posted about it.

I had the answer down to A which was about the sun drying out bones and water harming them, or C, which was about the silt preserving the marine fossils. I ultimately went with the one about the sun destroying the bones because the silt to me doesn't resolve why there are not so many land fossils, especially given the huge numbers in which they outnumbered them. It explained why there were marine fossils, but didn't do anything to resolve the paradox of why there are so few land fossils. The info about the sun destroying bones would certainly explain the land animals lack of fossils, but then again, it doesn't explain why there are so many marine fossils...unless you're assuming that a certain percentage of remains should be fossilized if there are no extenuating circumstances, which is what I was thinking. Anyone else?

Hmmm, I was pretty sure that it was the silt preserving them.  I don't remember the question too well, but I thought that the sun one required you to make an unnecessary assumption of some sort and that the silt one would, contrary to what you claim, resolve both parts of the paradox.  There's few land fossils because there's no silt on land.  For the sun to be the answer, you would have to assume facts about exposure to the sun versus state-of-being-buried.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 05:14:56 PM
I'm almost certain the answer was something like "marine fossils preserve better". Could be wrong, but I am almost certain.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 05:15:01 PM
fossils:

you have 10 - 100 times more land animals, but you find more marine fossils.  Explain why? 

Well, i think the silt explains why there are lots of marine fossils.  And because silt doesnt build up on land animals, it explains their lack too.  You could supposedly reverse that to explain the opposite way, but i think the actual fossilization process evidence weighs towards silt.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 05:16:22 PM
Blue fin-- I seem to remember it being fairly easy once I eliminated the questions that did seem important... Are dioxine and blue fin the same question? Which one of those (or was it a separate Q) dealt with the company dumping waste downstream? Geez, it all blurs...the hardest I thought was Ice Age/Meteor question. I put something to the effect that it leaps from what has happened on average in the past to a specific prediction (near future--couldn't decide if that was specific or  not but went with it)..

I didn't have a time issue on any of the sections, surprisingly. Course, it could have been the four shots of espresso before the test (whoever suggested that, good idea! Along with wearing green, lol, anyone else follow that marine guy's suggestion? I passed up the run, but did do the hot/cold shower).

I'm curious as to how others came out on the tv/violence/advertising question, I'm pretty sure I got it wrong but I went with the answer that basically said he's using another study that really doesn't have anything to do with the other (or he assumes they do... .the wording was messed up though). I was tempted by something about behaviors and attitudes or something distinguishing behaviors from something.

The LR was by far more difficult than the prep tests I've completed... seemed to be out to play with our hands. But since the other sections were fairly standard/easy, I'm sure the scale will balance out to be similar to previous administrations.

ps--oop new posts!  Yup, i  put  the humans contact probs answer on blue fin, mmm hungry for seafood, anyone?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 05:18:41 PM
Blue fin different question from Dioxin. You guys sure that wasn't in the experimental LR? I don't remember it at all.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Cory on December 04, 2004, 05:19:17 PM


Hmmm, I was pretty sure that it was the silt preserving them.  I don't remember the question too well, but I thought that the sun one required you to make an unnecessary assumption of some sort and that the silt one would, contrary to what you claim, resolve both parts of the paradox.  There's few land fossils because there's no silt on land.  For the sun to be the answer, you would have to assume facts about exposure to the sun versus state-of-being-buried.

Yeah, this is why I spent time debating both of them. I'm sure you guys are right, but under the pressure of the test, I was thinking that with C, you're assuming that fossils can't materialize unless there's silt.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: brooklynman on December 04, 2004, 05:25:09 PM
By the way what was the answer to the sufficient assumption question dealing with radio advertising - I had it down to two choices one starting with only and the other with "the only" and had to make a quick decision.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lookwhois on December 04, 2004, 05:28:25 PM
fossils:

you have 10 - 100 times more land animals, but you find more marine fossils.  Explain why? 

Well, i think the silt explains why there are lots of marine fossils.  And because silt doesnt build up on land animals, it explains their lack too.  You could supposedly reverse that to explain the opposite way, but i think the actual fossilization process evidence weighs towards silt.

Matt

i agree, spent 2 minutes on this one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: tjordan90 on December 04, 2004, 05:33:47 PM

Yeah, this is why I spent time debating both of them. I'm sure you guys are right, but under the pressure of the test, I was thinking that with C, you're assuming that fossils can't materialize unless there's silt.

You know, I've reached the point in my LSAT studying where I am more interested in debating answers I answer incorrectly than trying to find the alleged correct answer.  I think that may mean I'm ready for law school.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 06:18:54 PM
"There was a question about the ascetic ideal of Monks"

Did you have for an answer something to the extent of "They are an unrepresentative sample"?

yep, im nearly positive this answer was correct.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 06:20:55 PM
That is a 100% would bet my life on question.

I loved seeing those, that question took like 40 seconds to do.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 06:21:45 PM
the blueray fish was an except question - I think a discrepancy one. I cant remember the answers though - maybe D? something like D or E

Amazingly, I think I remember putting B on that question.  I can't remember anything about the responses, but I just remember that I spent a lof of time and I crossed out C and D to begin with.

Edit: And it was a question like "Answering which of the following question would explain this phenonomenon, EXCEPT?"

yea, im pretty sure i picked B on that one.  it was someting like "what kinds of illnesses do humans get from eating toxic fish?" or something like that
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 04, 2004, 06:22:26 PM
I honestly dont remember toxic fish at ALL

Sigh,

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 06:23:32 PM
i got 4 As in a row too, i guess on the games, which i noticed.

anyone remember the question about art being intrinsic and/or objective.

i think it was assumption, and i put that 'sometimes the value of art is intrinsic"

any thoughts?

im pretty sure this is incorrect.  i put something like "extrinsic can never be objective" or something like that
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 06:24:10 PM
I honestly dont remember toxic fish at ALL

Sigh,

Matt

The fish had deformed fins.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: estouaqui on December 04, 2004, 07:10:56 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

PLEASE DON'T BE SO GULLIBLE.....THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE IS SETUP SO THAT ASIA IS *AHEAD* OF THE US.  (HEAVEN FORBID THAT US BE BEHIND ANYONE)

BY THE TIME MOST AMERICAN TEST TAKERS WALK OUT, IT IS ALREADY SUNDAY IN ASIA.

WHEN YOU'RE A LAWYER, PLEASE VERIFY FACTS BEFORE SIMPLY REGURGITATING.

ps sorry to be loud.  see www.timeanddate.com for verification.  whoever posted first was well-intentioned, but his zeal was misplaced.

please wait for 3 more hours.
-----------------------------------

 Please READ BEFORE POSTING specifics about Dec04 exam!
« on: Today at 03:02:08 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case no one else has mentioned it again recently, test takers in the far east (e.g. Japan, Korea, Austalia) will not have taken the exam tomorrow by the time we in the US have finished and are ready to start discussing it and rehashing and reconstructing various questions and answers on this and other internet boards.

The possibility that those overseas could use this for unfair advantage was mentioned back in October, but only after it was too late. Some test takers in Asia admitted having access to valuable info before the test because of this. I would consider it a given that some folks on the other side of the Pacific will be cruising this board for hints, especially given the discussion it generated last time (people joking about flying to Japan to test and whatnot). But they can't exploit this opportunity unless we make it available to them. And realistically, someone who posts info about the exam before all have tested is in just as much violation of LSAT rules as is anyone who would seek and use that info.

So please keep this in mind, and strongly consider postponing any specific discussion of games, questions, or answers until around 6:00pm Eastern time, when those in Asia/Australia will have started the exam for the most part. Just a suggestion in the interest of keeping things as fair for everyone as possible. Thanks.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Cory on December 04, 2004, 07:12:51 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

PLEASE DON'T BE SO GULLIBLE.....THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE IS SETUP SO THAT ASIA IS *AHEAD* OF THE US.  (HEAVEN FORBID THAT US BE BEHIND ANYONE)

BY THE TIME MOST AMERICAN TEST TAKERS WALK OUT, IT IS ALREADY SUNDAY IN ASIA.

WHEN YOU'RE A LAWYER, PLEASE VERIFY FACTS BEFORE SIMPLY REGURGITATING.

ps sorry to be loud.  see www.timeanddate.com for verification.  whoever posted first was well-intentioned, but his zeal was misplaced.

I remember reading Ebert's review of Dogma (I think) where he talked about how seriously Catholic doctrine was discussed in class. They brought up the issue of fulfilling your Easter duties if you happened to cross the IDL and thus throwing off your duties for the week. This has nothing to do with anything, but it's the only contribution I can make to any discussion involving the IDL.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: kccole on December 04, 2004, 07:39:12 PM
Can anyone remember th specifics of the "happiness at work vs. the personal family questions"? Was it a cause and effect question or something else?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 07:44:54 PM
work = trust (=mutual respect) = enduring relationship
personal/family = trust (=mutual respect) + affinity = enduring relationship

i put friendship w/ no affinity = do not endure
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 07:48:09 PM
The answer to that one was A

It was something like "A personal relationship based solely on trust and mutual respect cannot last" or something

And one of the [two] requirements for a personal relationship was natural affinity (the second was trust)..
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 07:52:26 PM
Exactly, except I think it was specifically a friendship (which is explicitly classified as a personal relationship in the passage)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 07:55:10 PM
Yeah that sounds familiar

I only remember that much because I spent like 5 minutes on this question.. it was later in the section and I thought it was supposed to be a "hard" question... usually when answer choice A on a hard question sounds really good, it's incorrect.. so I was agonizing over the other 4 choices for a while and I was like .. duh.. A is clearly correct.. wasted 5 minutes.. but hey, I finished the section.. barely ;)
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ladym on December 04, 2004, 07:58:27 PM
wasn't the answer about the necessity of personal relationships to be able to achieve happiness...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 07:59:44 PM
for the family one, did you guys pick the choice that was something about people not finding hapiness outside of the home.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:01:15 PM
You mean what personal relationships need in order to achieve happiness?  Yes, that was the key to this question..

Here was the stimulus (in a nutshell)

Good relationship ---(only if)--> trust

trust --> mutual respect

good personal relationship (i.e. friendship, marriage) --> affinity



answer choice A (in a nutshell):

You cannot have a good personal relationship (friendship?) if it's based solely on trust and mutual respect.

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:02:09 PM
what family one?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 08:04:33 PM
its the one that describes happiness being found in family, etc. because people are  aware of the fact that their jobs are dispensible and/or could be performed by others.

I went with the answer stated above. Pretty basic logical deduction I thought, course I always worry I was rushing through and missed something.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: yesidid on December 04, 2004, 08:05:26 PM
Please READ BEFORE POSTING specifics about Dec04 exam!
« on: Today at 03:02:08 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case no one else has mentioned it again recently, test takers in the far east (e.g. Japan, Korea, Austalia) will not have taken the exam tomorrow by the time we in the US have finished and are ready to start discussing it and rehashing and reconstructing various questions and answers on this and other internet boards.

The possibility that those overseas could use this for unfair advantage was mentioned back in October, but only after it was too late. Some test takers in Asia admitted having access to valuable info before the test because of this. I would consider it a given that some folks on the other side of the Pacific will be cruising this board for hints, especially given the discussion it generated last time (people joking about flying to Japan to test and whatnot). But they can't exploit this opportunity unless we make it available to them. And realistically, someone who posts info about the exam before all have tested is in just as much violation of LSAT rules as is anyone who would seek and use that info.

So please keep this in mind, and strongly consider postponing any specific discussion of games, questions, or answers until around 6:00pm Eastern time, when those in Asia/Australia will have started the exam for the most part. Just a suggestion in the interest of keeping things as fair for everyone as possible. Thanks

just checked a world clock if asia had to take thier exam at 8:30 on dec 4th that means by the time lets say new yorkers took thier test it was 6 to 8pm in Europe. they took it before us. unless they are scheduled to take their test on sunday??
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 08:05:44 PM
its the one that describes happiness being found in family, etc. because people are  aware of the fact that their jobs are dispensible and/or could be performed by others.

I went with the answer stated above. Pretty basic logical deduction I thought, course I always worry I was rushing through and missed something.

yea,  but im just sobering up now so i dont know if this was in the experimental section.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 08:05:54 PM
I put that too, rosemary.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:06:48 PM
I remember that stimulus, but not the question type or answer choices

I remember being sure of the answer though

The stimulus was like.. people are only happy when they feel needed.  because of technology in the modern world, people are easily replacable at work.  so in the modern world, people can only be happy at home.. or something to that effect

So it's obviously a flawed argument.. but could have been any number of question types.. but "flaw" comes to mind

What were the answer choices?  do you remember?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 08:07:18 PM
It wasn't. I had it and my experimental was LG.

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 08:07:43 PM
i dont think it was flaw question, pretty sure it was an inference/must be true one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: yesidid on December 04, 2004, 08:10:21 PM
the one about the paper mill waste?

what about the thing about fossils found in a lake bottom? or 95% of fossils are marine fossils? or am i suddenly remembering some old practice test?

That one about the fossils was a resolve/explain.. the answer was that they're better preserved under water

i thought we had to resolve the why their were more land animals yet 95% of marine animal fossils were found in the ground. i thought the answer was something about a slit in the earth or something was able to reserve them.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:12:27 PM
Oh no.. there have been way more animals on land than under water, yet most of the fossilized species we've found have been marine-dwelling

So you had to explain why we'd find so many fossils from these water animals, even though there were very few of them

Although, there is always the chance that I mis-read the stimulus
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: yesidid on December 04, 2004, 08:14:24 PM
Did anybody get an LR which compared a car to something else.  I think it might have been a weaken question.  Two of the 5 choices talked about the car and 3 talked about other stuff from the stimulus.  Might have been experimental.  Man, I can't remember sh*t.

the lawnmower question?
please tell me the answer was that electric mowers produce less emissions per hour than cars.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 08:16:44 PM
I don't believe it was that one yesidid, if you read carefully I don't believe it matched  up, I went with the answer  relating to gas/fuel usage by electric/traditional mowers.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: yesidid on December 04, 2004, 08:17:43 PM
For some reason the answer choice about blueray fish that sticks out in my mind (but I can't remember if I chose it) was that they didn't account for problems that could be caused by the hormones that are caused by the chemical

Oh snap I remember my response: it was something about whether the hormone levels affect levels outside of the fish I think.


wasn't the answer a weakening question and the answer was paper mills provided the results of the study. and in the stimulus the the results of the study was that the hormone levels of the fish returned to normal adn the decompose materila is slow to spread. this answer would mean the results are biased??? anyone else get this?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:17:58 PM
Sorry I don't remember the exact stimulus or question stem or answers, but I can tell you that "cars and lawnmowers produce the same emissions per hour" was a premise, and the correct answer choice NEVER contradicts a premise
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:19:21 PM
About the fish with fins, the answer choice was "the effects caused by increased amounts of hormones continue after the hormone levels returned to normal"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: yesidid on December 04, 2004, 08:22:47 PM
children smoking cigs
plant blaming waste company
violent t.v. advertisements
polished spears cavemen
meteor hits earth 100,000 yrs/avg
governor helping only rich
arg-artistic value / govts
fish/stream dioxin
"as they say"
artists extrinsic value
natural resources govt global warming
uv rays cavemen ozone layer
students tuition
wealthy people/stealing artwork
mice bladder/rats bladder
lawnmower electric/gas
monks/aesthetics
fossils preserved land/sea
happiness at work/family personal relationships
growth of wheat/demand up/supply of land low
dem govts morality
computers installation
independent supervisor
larson scheduling conflict/aggressive..supervisor


wow, how the hell did you remember all these?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:24:32 PM
Wow!

I can totally recognize them, but I can't recall a single one.

There were two on my 2nd args section that I was totally confused about (down to 2) that I'd love to be able to ask you guys about

They were both on the last 2 pages of the section
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 08:26:02 PM
the lawnmower one stated that gas lawn mowers use as much fuel or make as much pollution as a car per hour. the passage advocated switching to electric to help the environment. the question asked what would strengthen this argument, and the answer was if the fuel required/pollution produced to power an electric mower was less than a car per hour. i think.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 08:26:56 PM
About the fish with fins, the answer choice was "the effects caused by increased amounts of hormones continue after the hormone levels returned to normal"

Are you sure that wasn't the dioxine question?  Blue fins was an EXCEPT,  I thought, to which the answer pertained to the fish causing disease in humans.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:28:34 PM
Oh thanks, I remember the answer choice verbatim (well, not quite)

"The pollutant emissions from the generation of the energy required to power electric lawnmowers would not offset the reduction in emissions from the reduction of gas/fuel usage"


Or something.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 08:28:46 PM
Did anybody get an LR which compared a car to something else.  I think it might have been a weaken question.  Two of the 5 choices talked about the car and 3 talked about other stuff from the stimulus.  Might have been experimental.  Man, I can't remember sh*t.

the lawnmower question?
please tell me the answer was that electric mowers produce less emissions per hour than cars.

Sorry, less pollution to create the electricity for mowers...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:30:23 PM
About the fish with fins, the answer choice was "the effects caused by increased amounts of hormones continue after the hormone levels returned to normal"

Are you sure that wasn't the dioxine question?  Blue fins was an EXCEPT,  I thought, to which the answer pertained to the fish causing disease in humans.
OOps sorry, yes that was the answer to the dioxin.

I honestly don't remember the except on the fins.. and if it was an except, I probably got it wrong
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 08:30:52 PM
Oh thanks, I remember the answer choice verbatim (well, not quite)

"The pollutant emissions from the generation of the energy required to power electric lawnmowers would not offset the reduction in emissions from the reduction of gas/fuel usage"


Or something.

yea i picked this choice as well.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:31:09 PM
Do you remember more details about the stimulus/question on the fins one?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 08:33:00 PM
About the fish with fins, the answer choice was "the effects caused by increased amounts of hormones continue after the hormone levels returned to normal"

Are you sure that wasn't the dioxine question?  Blue fins was an EXCEPT,  I thought, to which the answer pertained to the fish causing disease in humans.
OOps sorry, yes that was the answer to the dioxin.

I honestly don't remember the except on the fins.. and if it was an except, I probably got it wrong

I believe it was an EXCEPT stating that all of the following would be important to discover EXCEPT, correct me if I am wrong, that could have been  a different  question. Don't  remember the specific answer choices.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: jmr47 on December 04, 2004, 08:33:07 PM
Did anybody get an LR which compared a car to something else.  I think it might have been a weaken question.  Two of the 5 choices talked about the car and 3 talked about other stuff from the stimulus.  Might have been experimental.  Man, I can't remember sh*t.

the lawnmower question?
please tell me the answer was that electric mowers produce less emissions per hour than cars.

Sorry, less pollution to create the electricity for mowers...

"electric mowers produce less emissions per hour than cars." isn't this the same thing? didn't the passage say pollution from gas lawmowers = per hour pollution of cars, so if its less than cars...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:35:25 PM
right jmr but one of the rules in arguments on the LSAT is you can NEVER contradict a premise in the stimulus -- that "cars and lawnmowers produce the same emissions per hour" was a premise, so that can't be the correct answer
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:36:33 PM
Oh crap was that the evaluate except question?  I remember one of those, but don't remember its stimulus.

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 08:38:17 PM
right jmr but one of the rules in arguments on the LSAT is you can NEVER contradict a premise in the stimulus -- that "cars and lawnmowers produce the same emissions per hour" was a premise, so that can't be the correct answer

the premise said that "Gasonline lawnmowers prodce the same emissions as cars" and its attempting to convince us to use Electric mowers.


So I agree with jmr that the answer that strengthens the argument is that electric mowers produce less than cars, and therefore, less than gasoline mowers.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:39:08 PM
No the premise specifically said per hour, and went on to indicate that since lawnmowers are only used during the summer, it's not that bad a problem, but still a problem

It definately specified the rate, not the overall amount, I read it a couple times
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 08:40:36 PM
For the lawnmowers question: I answered "The energy required to generate 1 hour of electric mower time pollutes less than the energy required to run a car for an hour" or whatever. I'm 95% sure that is correct.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 04, 2004, 08:41:43 PM
It was definetly what Ryan says, I'm 100% certain. I think this was discussed earlier in the thread too.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:42:13 PM
For the lawnmowers question: I answered "The energy required to generate 1 hour of electric mower time pollutes less than the energy required to run a car for an hour" or whatever. I'm 95% sure that is correct.

I don't remember that answer choice, was it the following?

This is close to word-for-word, especially "offset": "The pollutant emissions from the generation of the energy required to power electric lawnmowers would not offset the reduction in emissions from the reduction of gas/fuel usage"
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Gummibearz on December 04, 2004, 08:47:46 PM
For the lawnmowers question: I answered "The energy required to generate 1 hour of electric mower time pollutes less than the energy required to run a car for an hour" or whatever. I'm 95% sure that is correct.

this is what i put.  i guess we'll find out in a month
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 08:51:16 PM
bhexville, i'm not sure if that was an answer choice or not, but it does not have the correct overall idea that was stated in my answer. The general idea was that you want to pollute less, and in order to pollute less the electric lawnmower needed to be traced back to what produces its power--namely the power plant. If the power plant generates less pollution to make power to run an electric mower for an hour than a car pollutes per hour(which is equal to a gas mower) then it would result in a net reduction of pollution.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 04, 2004, 08:52:02 PM
For the lawnmowers question: I answered "The energy required to generate 1 hour of electric mower time pollutes less than the energy required to run a car for an hour" or whatever. I'm 95% sure that is correct.

i agree
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 08:53:31 PM
ryan, I don't think you understand what this is saying: "The pollutant emissions from the generation of the energy required to power electric lawnmowers would not offset the reduction in emissions from the reduction of gas/fuel usage"

It specifically addresses the emissions from the generation of the energy (where is it generated? -- at a power plant)

The answer choice you guys are quoting is logically equivalent to mine, you just don't remember how it was originally worded
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ryanjm on December 04, 2004, 09:04:15 PM
I understand what it's saying, but the passage never said anything about a reduction in gas/fuel usage. It only talked about switching from gas to electric. Regardless, I think we can agree what the correct answer was.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 09:21:05 PM
Advertising/Buying Habits--Violence/Viewers being more violent Q, author may be criticied on grounds that... q

thoughts?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 09:22:01 PM
Dude(tte), that is way too abstract for me

Do you remember more details?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 09:22:21 PM
Damn.. that whole "dudette" thing was so corny, please ignore it :(
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 09:27:36 PM
Are you referring to me as dudette? :)

If so, I'm referring to the question that stated that while tv advertising causes viewers to buy said products, this occurs  because that is the goal of the advertiser. However, this cannot be applied to violence because that is not the goal of violent television. (or  something to that effect), and the Question was which answer best describes grounds by which the author may be criticized (I believe).

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 09:28:18 PM
Well I put the tte in parentheses because I wasn't sure, although you have to admit, your name is pretty effeminate

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 09:29:52 PM
Oh damn I vaguely remember that question... but it's not hard to see the flaw there right?

Unintended consequences are possible, or maybe a weak necessary/sufficient confusion?

The first one was the answer right?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 04, 2004, 09:32:04 PM
I put something about the violence connection not being comparable because it may have set out to prove something different. There was something else about distiguishing behavior (from ?), I didn't go with a, do you remember what a was?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 04, 2004, 09:36:28 PM
Sorry I really don't remember any of the answer choices specifically, I must have rushed through that one
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: flossy on December 04, 2004, 09:37:52 PM
I had a tough time with that question.  I know it was flawed reasoning, but I can't remember any of the verbiage.  Maybe someone here can help us piece together the question.  Author cites some evidence that advertising affects with buying behavior...then extrapolates to violent imagery resulting in violent behavior.

I selected the answer that desribed the flaw in abstract terms (didn't mention TV or violent behavior explicitly).
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: seminolaw on December 04, 2004, 09:43:24 PM
Ok, sections as follows:  LR, RC, LR, LG, LR.
Last LR started off with the efficient lawnmower question. 
At the end of the section, and I know memories are fading, but I got B,B,B,E for the last four questions; can anyone at all verfify this or something similar?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: F650GS on December 04, 2004, 09:59:32 PM
LR 1 definately had a different "feel" then any one I had taken before.

I think also the fact that I was extremely frusted at my s**t performance on my first RC section carried onto LR (1).

I actually like principle/reasoning questions and believe I did fairly well on them and there did seem to be alot. 

I have to cancel though due to my s**T performance on RC (1) i could have done so much better.

RC (exp) LR (2) AR I breezed through due to the fact that they where easier and it was about 10 am when my brain usually starts working like it should

Can't they give the test at Noon.  Its saturday for christs sakes no one works.

LOL thats it maybe i'll take it again in feb.....damn test :)


Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 05, 2004, 12:02:39 PM
accessories and free installation.

If you are getting accessories you dont know how to install, they come with free installation, that is weakening it.

Instructions for the jumpers only covered half of it

Matt

No, it refered to wanting to install their own because they didn't want to pay to have them installed which implies they aren't a part of the computer. If the accessories are already in the computer then the entire point is moot. Jumpers only covered a small part of their problem. The answer is comes installed.

You took the sucker's answer.  The question specifically talked about people that wanted to install their own accessories.  Preinstaled accessories would not apply to these people.  The only reason that installation was difficult was because the jumpers had to be set.  Therefore, if you had a manual to set the jumpers, problem solved.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: duderbrain on December 05, 2004, 12:20:49 PM
From what I recollect, these were the two that I labored over. However, if you recall, the question stem didn't really have anything to do with difficulties in installing the components. It was actually about difficulty in using computers. If it were true that most computers came with preinstalled components, this would definitely weaken the claim. The cables one was in my opinion the "sucker" answer because it really didn't say much.

It was much like the farm raised/fresh trout one where the answer about the farm raised  trout taking away the fresh trouts food source was the easy sucker bet.

Who knows, I'm cancelling.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 05, 2004, 12:23:54 PM
We'll see in a fw weeks Linden, but I'm very confident in my answer.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 05, 2004, 12:29:57 PM
I chose the pre-installed answer too, duderbrain
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 12:40:31 PM
the answer was something like "most computers include accessories and come with free technical installation"  i also picked this one.  the argument was something about how accessories were a major obstacle to computer use.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Cory on December 05, 2004, 03:57:22 PM
the answer was something like "most computers include accessories and come with free technical installation"  i also picked this one.  the argument was something about how accessories were a major obstacle to computer use.

I know this thread has been moved down a little bit today, but what the heck.

I see the point about how jumpers would be okay if people wanted to just install jumpers, but the point of the argument was that installation of new products and accessories was a major obstacle to widespread use, which is the key phrase there. If that hadn't been there, I could see the jumper answer being correct, but the language was implying that few people were buying computers because of the difficulties with accessories and such. If computers came with "accessories" installed (I agree you can't assume here that it's just common accessories, but given the way the stimulus referred to accessories in general, it seemed ok) and with manuals, then that would do a lot more than just jumpers, because the people who aren't buying computers still wouldn't be able to upgrade or whatever.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: arc87 on December 05, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
why are we discussing this computer question - it took about 15 seconds to see the answer on that one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 05, 2004, 04:01:12 PM
No the jumpers was the sucker answer because it did not address all of the problems.  Having good instructions for the jumpers was not the only issue.

It was not talking about specific computer users, they talked about the:

GENERAL population of computer users who had problems installing accessories.

That generally accessories are provided with computers with FREE INSTALLATION really solves that problem a lot better.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 04:10:56 PM
I think there was a point of issue question about democratic governments or something....

yes. the answer inmy strong opinion was that government's determine (not sure if this is right word) a society's values. there was a TRAP answer choice for this question that i noticed, it mentioend democratic government and one dude didn't state nor imply anthing abt democratic gov't

The first speaker mentioned all govts. So they could not have been disagreeing only about "democratic governments".  You're right, the first one (the one that specified "democratic" was a trap).
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 04:13:24 PM
they WOULD disagree over whether or not subsidies from democratic governments would ruin art.  the first speaker said any government subsidy would ruin it.  the second speaker said that democracies allow free thoughts or whatever, so they wouldnt ruin it.

thats what i picked.  it was tricky because the first speaker did not specifically mention democratic governments, but they are included under her blanket statement.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 05, 2004, 04:14:28 PM
Sorry, the disagreement was, and i remember this very saliently

They are disagreeing whether democratic govt's who fund art produce bad art.

One said yes, the other said no.

Very easy.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 04:40:26 PM
The question is not what we can extrapolate that WOULD be the point of disagreement. Rather, the question was about what IS the point of disagreement. But if anyone could remember the wording of the answer choice that didn't specify "democratic", then this would be a lot easier to get to the bottom of.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: arc87 on December 05, 2004, 04:47:36 PM
we are at the bottom of it -  Matt is correct - 100%
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: arc87 on December 05, 2004, 04:48:37 PM
I understand where you would be tempted to say -  oh it says demo so that cant be it - but I glanced back at the stimulus and it did mention demo.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 04:49:10 PM
Fine...but can anyone still recall the other answer choice about government subsidizing art?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 04:50:41 PM
I understand where you would be tempted to say -  oh it says demo so that cant be it - but I glanced back at the stimulus and it did mention demo.

Yes, but it was only the 2nd speaker that specified "democratic".  The first speaker was not referring specifically, so how could he disagree with that?  There was another reasonable answer about govt. that didn't specify "democratic" but I can't remember what it was.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Cory on December 05, 2004, 04:53:04 PM

Yes, but it was only the 2nd speaker that specified "democratic".  The first speaker was not referring specifically, so how could he disagree with that?  There was another reasonable answer about govt. that didn't specify "democratic" but I can't remember what it was.

I have no idea what the choice was cali, but he can disagree with it because he said ANY government subsidy cannot lead to good art, because governments inherently have an interest in protecting their freedoms (or whatever it was) and artists cannot go against that if funded.

The other speaker says that's BS because democracies pride themselves on allowing dissent, and thus a subsidy under a democracy could lead to good art. Right there is the disagreement: Speaker A would say no way, speaker B would say yes.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: arc87 on December 05, 2004, 04:54:25 PM
IF he was saying government in the universal sense - that would encompass democratic governments.

Which answer did you select?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 04:56:05 PM
cory is correct
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: kpUTX05 on December 05, 2004, 05:15:14 PM
Does anyone remember the farm raised trout question and what they put for the answer?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 05:15:54 PM
@#!*...I can't remember what I put...I didn't like the "democratic" specificity, but I wasn't 100% happy with the 2nd part of the other "government" one (the one that didn't specify "democratic").  PLEASE LET ME KNOW if you think of any other answer choices for this question!
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: arc87 on December 05, 2004, 05:18:35 PM
isee what your getting at - man I really cannot think of any other choices.


Do any of us have anything better to do than sit at the computer hung over wathcing NFL and pontificating over the LSAT



Yes, but it was only the 2nd speaker that specified "democratic".  The first speaker was not referring specifically, so how could he disagree with that?  There was another reasonable answer about govt. that didn't specify "democratic" but I can't remember what it was.

I have no idea what the choice was cali, but he can disagree with it because he said ANY government subsidy cannot lead to good art, because governments inherently have an interest in protecting their freedoms (or whatever it was) and artists cannot go against that if funded.

The other speaker says that's BS because democracies pride themselves on allowing dissent, and thus a subsidy under a democracy could lead to good art. Right there is the disagreement: Speaker A would say no way, speaker B would say yes.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: muhahaNo on December 05, 2004, 05:36:38 PM
one of the wrong choices, imo, said "in the near future, manuals and instructions will be given". "in the future" being the reason why i didn't pick this choice
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: ladym on December 05, 2004, 06:08:24 PM
Cali,

I think the art question was what was the basis of the disagreement and the answer was whether or not art could represent something different than the perceived values of government when government was the entity subsidizing it...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: yesidid on December 05, 2004, 08:15:11 PM
Oh no.. there have been way more animals on land than under water, yet most of the fossilized species we've found have been marine-dwelling

So you had to explain why we'd find so many fossils from these water animals, even though there were very few of them

Although, there is always the chance that I mis-read the stimulus

if anything i'm sure i read it wrong.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 05, 2004, 09:40:55 PM
Ok, what about the caveman and polished stones for asthetic purposes.  I put that they used the stones for household chores as well.
For the one on depelting the ozone layer I put that people however many years ago had a better defense to uv rays (or something along those lines).

One of the most difficult for me was the second questions on the difficult lr section.  It was about Larson and the schedule.  There was an assumption, i thought all of these answers were plausable:
a. the person must be a supervisor
b. the third person mentioned (that must be it because the other two were ruled out) does not have a motivational problem
c. if one has a schedule conflict one cannot do this
I don't remember what I put now, but i think a put the second one i mentioned
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 05, 2004, 09:42:52 PM
You got the polished arrowheads correct, and I think the answer to the schedule thing was "only supervisors".. so A
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: woogu on December 05, 2004, 09:43:13 PM
Does anyone remember the first LR question in a section which was about
facts about a slumping economy or something.  The question was which can be inferred
and I think the answer was something like:

The economist does not believe that statistics are always the accurate reflections or something to that effect.

The answer choice was letter
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 09:45:06 PM
i think i also chose "only supervisors" but i wasnt sure at all, and thinking back now im even less confident.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 05, 2004, 09:46:03 PM
Only supervisors...other answers simply didnt measure up.

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: bhvexille on December 05, 2004, 09:47:42 PM
I'm pretty sure about it

The stimulus was something like this:

A B and C are the only supervisors.  A can't do the task because of x.  B can't do the task because of y.  So C MUST do the task.

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 05, 2004, 09:48:13 PM
Ok, what about the caveman and polished stones for asthetic purposes.  I put that they used the stones for household chores as well.
For the one on depelting the ozone layer I put that people however many years ago had a better defense to uv rays (or something along those lines).

One of the most difficult for me was the second questions on the difficult lr section.  It was about Larson and the schedule.  There was an assumption, i thought all of these answers were plausable:
a. the person must be a supervisor
b. the third person mentioned (that must be it because the other two were ruled out) does not have a motivational problem
c. if one has a schedule conflict one cannot do this
I don't remember what I put now, but i think a put the second one i mentioned


Only sup.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 09:49:30 PM
whew, confirmation from franz and matt makes me feel a lot better.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: woogu on December 05, 2004, 09:51:11 PM
For the caveman question, I put that "having aesthetical qualities cannot be measured" or something, that was answer choice E.  How does the fact thay they use them for household chores mean that it doesnt have aesthetic purpose sometimes
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 05, 2004, 09:52:02 PM
the only two that i think i have missed is that cigarette one maybe and that damn one with the fish in the river.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 05, 2004, 09:52:46 PM
Because it meant they were used for another purpose besides hunting, and maybe they needed to be more polished for whatever the household chore was.  Which would mean they were not more polished for asthetic purposes.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 05, 2004, 09:53:52 PM
Franz,
  What do you think the fish one is.  I hated that question, I thought about selecting the answr about how long it took the poison to make it down the river.  But, I didn't see why that would matter.  I don't remember what I put anymore though.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 09:54:27 PM
It was that the spear could be for "everyday uses" for that one. 99.9% sure. If it had uses other than hunting, then there are other reasons why it could have been so sharp. Like to open cans or something...lol
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 09:55:57 PM
katie, the fish one was something about how physiological changes are permanent even after hormone levels return to normal.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 05, 2004, 09:59:48 PM
Franz,
  What do you think the fish one is.  I hated that question, I thought about selecting the answr about how long it took the poison to make it down the river.  But, I didn't see why that would matter.  I don't remember what I put anymore though.

i think i put that the chemicals went down the river in 5 hours... i was a sucker i think.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 10:02:23 PM
What was the answer to the question about the only supervisors in the department that can do the task?

I chose the assumption that it "had to be a supervisor". Was this right?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 05, 2004, 10:03:05 PM
What was the answer to the question about the only supervisors in the department that can do the task?

I chose the assumption that it "had to be a supervisor". Was this right?

i think that is what some of us decided.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: woogu on December 05, 2004, 10:32:18 PM
3 Specific questions

1.)  RC-Fungi Passage-- #19 last question in passage
Which would allow for the reversal of the parasatic and symbiotic relationship or something to that effect?  I picked A.)  because it said it found out that the relationship was in fact reversed

2.)  RC- Canandian Aboriginal Law-- 3rd question in passage
     Why did author mention lines 5-10 (names of those 3 tribes)
     I said to give a specific example of the people for which the laws were enacted

3.)  LR-- Meteroite question with the fact that meteriote was going to hit cuz one has not hit in 100 million years.  I picked answer choice A.)  in that this was to bold of a prediction for the high prob of the meteorite.   
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 05, 2004, 10:39:20 PM
Are you talking about the Fungi question that ruined the idea that the relationship could evole either way??  If so, I put that one about how the fungi would die if it evolved one way.  I think you might be referring to a different question though. 

Your second I don't remember.  Was there more than one meteor question?  I know that I didn't slect the same answer as you did for that one, but I remember not being completely certain.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Scampura on December 05, 2004, 10:44:58 PM
The hardest LR question for me came near the end of the more difficult 26-question LR section.

The stimulus said (and my memory of it is almost completely shot) there were some changes to employee policy...er, maybe...and that somebody might get fired by a supervisor. Or something. Ring any bells?

I spent a good 2 minutes on that question and ended up choosing an answer that said something about "personal values." I think.

Help, someone. Please. I am clearly floundering in my recollection here.  ;D
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 05, 2004, 11:10:11 PM
Answer:  that supervisors can independently punish their employees (it was answer b)

Matt
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 11:14:52 PM
Answer:  that supervisors can independently punish their employees (it was answer b)

Matt

What question type was this?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 05, 2004, 11:15:40 PM
Answer:  that supervisors can independently punish their employees (it was answer b)

Matt

that sounds correct.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 05, 2004, 11:24:14 PM
Franz, rocked this test, huh? This a retake for you or no?
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: cascagrossa on December 05, 2004, 11:24:59 PM
yea im pretty sure that is right.  dammit, i picked another choice(one that said workers are subject to action taken based on vague laws), which i now realize was only a necessary assumption when im pretty sure the question was asking for a sufficient one.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 05, 2004, 11:25:24 PM
Franz, rocked this test, huh? This a retake for you or no?

yeah, retake.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: elocomotive on December 06, 2004, 12:02:02 AM
For the one on depelting the ozone layer I put that people however many years ago had a better defense to uv rays (or something along those lines).

Oh yeah, had forgotten the Ozone one.  Anyone remember the other answers that seemed viable for this.  I remeber the 'better defense against uv' was in my final two, but can't remember what my other finalist was.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 06, 2004, 12:04:43 AM
For the one on depelting the ozone layer I put that people however many years ago had a better defense to uv rays (or something along those lines).

Oh yeah, had forgotten the Ozone one.  Anyone remember the other answers that seemed viable for this.  I remeber the 'better defense against uv' was in my final two, but can't remember what my other finalist was.


something like.. better genetic defense against UV rays, i think that is what i put
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: sleazyd on December 06, 2004, 12:55:55 AM
My 5 sections were
Logical Reasoning
Reading Comp
Logic Games
Logic Games
Logical Reasoning

It seems clear that section 3 is the experimental section.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: lawguru on December 06, 2004, 06:54:34 AM

For the one on depelting the ozone layer I put that people however many years ago had a better defense to uv rays (or something along those lines).


i think i puit something different for this question, concerning the ozone layer depletion..something on how the ozone layer damage accumulates ..does anyone concur?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: Scampura on December 06, 2004, 07:01:53 AM
I remember choosing the answer about people being unaffected...or did I?

You know, technology has advanced an awful lot in the last several years. I hate that it still takes so long for us to get test results back. Why can't they do it in a single week?

LSAC is the devil. I hate them.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: calibos11 on December 06, 2004, 07:45:36 AM

For the one on depelting the ozone layer I put that people however many years ago had a better defense to uv rays (or something along those lines).


i think i puit something different for this question, concerning the ozone layer depletion..something on how the ozone layer damage accumulates ..does anyone concur?

Having cumulative effects does not preclude it from having been harmful in its initial stages. The question asked to resolve the discrepancy, if I remember correctly, about why the major destruction of the ozone didn't affect early man.  Genetic resistance to UV damage would explain this.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 06, 2004, 09:42:39 AM
One was about the company in the river and that it might be affecting the fins of some blueray fish or something

The other was a principle question about how if you hire someone to do something for you, THEY"RE the ones who are responsible for anything that goes wrong.. the answer was about parents & their kids

To bring back up a previously mentioned question... I remember this question.  The company was not responsible for the waste dumping because they hired someone to do it for them.  I don't remember the correct answer though.  Does anyone remember anything more than parents and kids.... (just that alone doesn't ring a bell).
Thanks:)
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 06, 2004, 09:50:08 AM
Yup! It was parents and their adolescent children.

Title: Re: LR section
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 06, 2004, 09:53:12 AM
here's one that i thought was kinda tricky
it was one of those what role does the statemnet play... it was about wheat or some crop... conclusion was that there is going to be a food shortage...... because one wheat farms are operating at maximum efficiency (this was a premise for what i thought was a sub-conclusion ... i cant remember the short sentence) and two population growth.

it was either "subconclusion" or "a phenomenon, the casual argument of which is the conclusion" or something

I don't think anything was decided on this either.  I went back and forth on those two options.  I ended up putting a phenomena which was supported instead of the subconclusion one.  What do you guys think?  I didn't feel like it was necessarily a subconclusion, but didn't feel great about the other one either.
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: Praetor on December 06, 2004, 09:57:10 AM
here's one that i thought was kinda tricky
it was one of those what role does the statemnet play... it was about wheat or some crop... conclusion was that there is going to be a food shortage...... because one wheat farms are operating at maximum efficiency (this was a premise for what i thought was a sub-conclusion ... i cant remember the short sentence) and two population growth.

it was either "subconclusion" or "a phenomenon, the casual argument of which is the conclusion" or something

It was a subconclusion. There is no doubt about it.

The parents and kids answer is correct as well.
I don't think anything was decided on this either.  I went back and forth on those two options.  I ended up putting a phenomena which was supported instead of the subconclusion one.  What do you guys think?  I didn't feel like it was necessarily a subconclusion, but didn't feel great about the other one either.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 06, 2004, 09:58:38 AM
I didn't feel it was a phenomenom, it was stated in the form of a conclusion, thus I went with the 'subsidiary conclusion', and I'm not sure it said 'necessary', it may have said 'allows for the final conclusion to be met', which it did, at least in my mind.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: Gummibearz on December 06, 2004, 10:00:02 AM
i put subconclusion as well.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 06, 2004, 10:09:24 AM
Yeah it was an intermediate/sub- conclusion
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 06, 2004, 11:23:18 AM
i believe that i put intermediate/sub-conclusion
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: luluhallmark on December 06, 2004, 11:55:22 AM
the resolve the paradox except question about tuition
it was either abt faculty salaries or scholarships

Wasn't that a WEAKEN question?  I think I put scholarships.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 06, 2004, 12:12:08 PM
Yeah, i remember the question.  Don't remember the question type.  But, the question was about why students would no longer be able to afford going to the school.  Some of the answers were less student jobs, increase in living expenses, raise in teacher salary, less scholarships.  Teacher salary was the only option that shouldn't make a difference in why students wouldn't be able to afford attending.  So, I think the teacher salary was the correct answer if I am remembering right...
Title: Re: LR section
Post by: luluhallmark on December 06, 2004, 12:13:38 PM
I saw someone mention the fossil discrepancy question way back, but no one else posted about it.

I had the answer down to A which was about the sun drying out bones and water harming them, or C, which was about the silt preserving the marine fossils. I ultimately went with the one about the sun destroying the bones because the silt to me doesn't resolve why there are not so many land fossils, especially given the huge numbers in which they outnumbered them. It explained why there were marine fossils, but didn't do anything to resolve the paradox of why there are so few land fossils. The info about the sun destroying bones would certainly explain the land animals lack of fossils, but then again, it doesn't explain why there are so many marine fossils...unless you're assuming that a certain percentage of remains should be fossilized if there are no extenuating circumstances, which is what I was thinking. Anyone else?


Was that the one about the people who ate the birds and left their bones or something and it dated back so many thousands of years?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: luluhallmark on December 06, 2004, 01:14:45 PM
Now I remember what it was, it was that tuition had not been raised at the local college, however, there have been less students who were able to go and their reason was they could no longer afford it.  We were supposed to resolve the discrepancy and I think I put something like a higher living expenses or something like that but the other choices were:  scholarships, raise in teacher's pay, etc.  Anyone remember that?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: cascagrossa on December 06, 2004, 01:16:12 PM
higher living expenses was definitely wrong.  i picked increased salaries
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: veedonfleece on December 06, 2004, 01:20:00 PM
Yeah, i remember the question.  Don't remember the question type.  But, the question was about why students would no longer be able to afford going to the school.  Some of the answers were less student jobs, increase in living expenses, raise in teacher salary, less scholarships.  Teacher salary was the only option that shouldn't make a difference in why students wouldn't be able to afford attending.  So, I think the teacher salary was the correct answer if I am remembering right...

Salaries is the correct answer.  Salaries would have no direct impact on what the students were paying.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 06, 2004, 01:26:33 PM
Salaries for sure
intermediate sub-conclusion for sure (conclusion picking was something i really focused on)
i picked the damn toxic sludge going up the river in 5 hours too...blehhhhhhhhhhhhh
for the meteorite, averages cant be made to use specific predictions
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: SHEVA Virus on December 06, 2004, 01:31:02 PM
I'm really confused about the tuition question, but I was positive that I had picked the correct asnwer when I chose the scholarship answer.  I'm assuming that I misread the question stem, because I specifically remember searching for the only reason why student would have a difficult time paying for school if tuition had not increased.

If I read the stem correctly, I know my answer was correct.  However, it seems as though, according to the number of people who recall the stem differently than I, that I misread it and got the question wrong.

Bummer.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: zuiko on December 06, 2004, 01:42:47 PM
What was the 5th answer choice to that tuition question?  Anyone remember?

1. less student jobs
2. increase in living expenses
3. raise in teacher salary
4. less scholarships
5. ?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: elocomotive on December 06, 2004, 01:44:42 PM
It was definitely faculty salaries b/c all the other factors effected the students directly (less jobs, less scholarships, etc), whereas the faculty salaries increasing would not necessarily increase costs for students - could be less teachers.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: SHEVA Virus on December 06, 2004, 01:45:44 PM
Was it "students are taking more classes"?

Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: SHEVA Virus on December 06, 2004, 01:50:20 PM
Just for the sake of argument:

Couldn't scholarships cover all increases in costs?  For example, if housing costs increrase, scholarships could increase just as much (has happened to me two years in a row).  Same is true of increased tuition, increased salary for teachers, etc.

The only thing that could definitively make it more difficult for students to pay is if those who got it their first two years no longer got it.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lawguru on December 06, 2004, 02:19:59 PM
growth of wheat/demand up/supply of land low

what was the Q&A for that??

---------------------------------------

as for the friendship/affinity question..was there an answer on how sth. about work and affinity..they say how people are not respected at work, and how people have mutual trust and respect in personal rels.
isn't the answer sth. like mutual trust presupposes respect..

or am i confusing two questions here??
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: andykoom on December 06, 2004, 03:14:27 PM
I had the 3 LR version of the test as well, and the first LR was unbelievably tough.  Didn't even finish the section and had to pull off a C-C-C at the end.  >:(
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 06, 2004, 03:24:31 PM
That was the correct answer
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: woogu on December 06, 2004, 03:25:36 PM
LAWGURU you are mixing 2 questions

The one you are talking about was interpersonal friendships require stuff and i also put the answer that says friendship presupposes...

The other question was about how you only are happy if you feel valuable and thats through relationships because at work you are indispensalbe and someone else can do your job   That answer is something like many people cannot only find true happiness only in their work lives or somethin  to that effect
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: woogu on December 06, 2004, 03:29:06 PM
I thought that one with the meteorite and its occurence every 100 million was a trick question almost
in that the answer choice

B)  said that assumes that the author does not take into account that the phenomenon has not happened within the expected time, that the phen will in fact occur.

But that is not the problem because HE does take that into effect and thats how he gets his conclusion.  I thought A was right because his claim was so bold for an event that had only a probability of happening

Not sure any input
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: long ago on December 06, 2004, 03:35:59 PM
I chose the average predicted to be exact or whatever on the meteorite one too I think that was right.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: norchuckis on December 06, 2004, 03:37:20 PM
anyone remember the question about environmental regulations and a nations wealth?  it was a strengthen question i believe.

my answer involved something about how a nation depends on industrial use of its natural resources for its wealth.

ring any bells?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: ryanjm on December 06, 2004, 03:41:58 PM
yes chuck, that's what i put as well, but i remember being unsure of it.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 06, 2004, 03:57:34 PM
anyone remember the question about environmental regulations and a nations wealth?  it was a strengthen question i believe.

my answer involved something about how a nation depends on industrial use of its natural resources for its wealth.

ring any bells?

i think this is what i put as well.. at first the question was tough, but i believe i was confident with this answer in the end.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: norchuckis on December 06, 2004, 04:00:36 PM
cool.

on that supervisor one, ive seen many of you say "only supervisors" was the answer.  is that the one that says it is only the supervisors perogative to interpret the rules?  or does the answer include something specific about discipline.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 06, 2004, 04:08:20 PM
eh, i dont think it was prof salaries at all.  how is this relevant?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 06, 2004, 04:12:29 PM
eh, i dont think it was prof salaries at all.  how is this relevant?

But I thought that was the question, which one of these is irrelevant? All the other choices seemed relevant to me. Maybe I misread though.

Love,
Q

i thought it was that students had to drop out because they couldnt afford school, but tuition had not increased.. so resolve the discrepancy. 

going over these lr questions is amusing.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: foxnewssucks on December 06, 2004, 04:15:52 PM
I agree it is quite amusing. I could have sworn it said which one of the following does NOT resolve the discrepancy, but really, whichever one of us remembers correctly doesn't matter since we've already turned in our tests, hehe.

Love,
Q


hmm, you may be right.. in that case it would be salaries and probably what i put.. i really do not remember my answer.  >:(
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: pizzaman on December 06, 2004, 04:28:35 PM
how are scholarships affected by an increase or decrease in tuition?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 06, 2004, 04:50:16 PM
I'm pretty sure the not being able to afford school one was which one of these is irrelevant.  Because all of the other options- increase in living expsenses, taking more classes, less jobs, etc. would all be relevant. 

For the meteor one I put that the had made a prediction from an average as the error.  I was also somewhat unsure of this.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: Matthew_24_24 on December 06, 2004, 04:50:58 PM
That answer is right katie...you cant make specific predictions from averages.

Matt
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 06, 2004, 04:52:06 PM
RE: Tuition increases:   It was a resolve question, but wanted you to give which answer didn't do anything to resolve, which was faculty salaries. Scholarships during first year of college could explain why earlier in their studies, students could afford school.

As for happiness/affinity/friendship: That was more or less a logic Q, analyzing the wording and applying it via necessity/sufficiency supplied the answer if I remember right. Something stating the requirements or whatever in a relationship.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 06, 2004, 04:54:37 PM
I'm pretty sure the not being able to afford school one was which one of these is irrelevant.  Because all of the other options- increase in living expsenses, taking more classes, less jobs, etc. would all be relevant. 

For the meteor one I put that the had made a prediction from an average as the error.  I was also somewhat unsure of this.

Concerning meteors:  Was it worded that way? Or did it include the words 'near future' at the end of the answer? I believe the answer I went with was along those lines but I'm positive in ended in 'near future', as in does not translate into something having to occur in the near future.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 06, 2004, 11:54:37 PM
For the tution question, I believe it was an "explain except" question, and I was able to narrow it down to the faculty salary and scholarship.  Then I eliminated the scholarship answer because the answer explicitly stated that scholarship were only good if students "maintained high grades."  So if students (even just one) faltered in their grades, they would lose their scholarship and tuition could be more unaffordable for those students.

LL
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 07, 2004, 12:20:05 AM
On the meteor question, it was "flaw" question, and 2 of the answer choices were prediction about the future based on past averages.  That is a flaw because 1 and 199999 (just as much as 99999 and 100001) also average 100000, so we might not be due for another meteor collision for a while.  I eliminated the second prediction answer because it stated "exact date"  while the premise stated "in the near future."

LL
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 07, 2004, 12:31:59 AM
After reading some of the posts, I was worried about the fishermen blaming the chemical plant about deformed fish question (because some people stated it was an EXCEPT question).  I thought it was a plain "the answer to which of the following question would help evalute the argument" question.

The premise stated the fisherman blame the plant because 3% of the fish had physical problems.  I jumped on the answer (A) with "the number of fish with deformities before the plant started dumping."

If the total deformed fish before the chemical plant started dumping totaled 0%, then the fishermen had a valid case.  If it was 2.9-3% beforehand, then it was a weak case.  If it was 5%, then the plant should probably countersue the fishermen for wasting their time.

I remembered this question because you don't see the word "lawsuit" in many LSAT PrepTest questions.  If this was an EXCEPT, then I got the answer wrong.

LL
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: sunseed on December 07, 2004, 01:12:43 AM
As to the question about student's tuition, can you remeber the answer choice of E? I firstly narrow down to A and E, in which A is about faculty's salary, but after comparation, I found E is more valid, while salary may somewhat help explain, but E cannot explain, so I choose E. You all remeber 4 options for this, and didn't fully consider E?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 07, 2004, 01:36:59 AM
With some help from previous posts, the tuitions answers are (may not be in order)

A) slight increase in faculty salary
B) living expense increase
C) mandatory increased in hours taken
D) scholarship as long as high grades are maintained
E) many school jobs for students will now be filled by nonstudents

I think the gist of the argument is explain why students are having a difficult time paying tuition even though tuition has not increased.

LLE
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 07, 2004, 01:40:58 AM
The last question on the last LR section was a pretty nasty "main conclusion" question.  It had a premise, followed by an intermediate conclusion phrased with "however," and then the final conclusion itself.  I was surprised to see the conclusion in the last sentence in a main conclusion question.  It was worded very convoluted, but I believe the answer is "policies should be changed."

LL
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 07, 2004, 01:41:49 AM
I can't remember that question at all -- do you remember any more details?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: sunseed on December 07, 2004, 02:25:28 AM
The last question of the second lr is about only supervisor etc.
Are you sure it is on the last of your second lr?

By the way, i think as to students tuition one, you split one answer choice to two, i am sure there is another choice option which is not in your list.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 07:44:59 AM
That paradox question re: credits, tuition, students complaining, etc. was an EXCEPT question ... I had it narrowed down to the choice about faculty salaries and *new* students getting scholarships (the stimulus dealt with students who had been enrolled for a few years) ... and I ultimately picked the answer about faculty salaries.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 07:53:24 AM
I also remember the question about the fisherman's argument re: chemical spilling, deformed fishes as an EXCEPT question.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 07:57:22 AM

Did anyone else get a pattern of EEE for three questions near the very end of the second LR section (the one that counted and the one with 25 questions) - I think for questions 22-23-24 - or something like that?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 07, 2004, 08:04:04 AM
For the tuition question, I don't recall any other answers.


About the last main conclusion question.  I don't recall too much of it, but I believe it was on the last page of the 3rd LR section on my test.  I did that question last, and remembered it to also be the last question overall, but I could be wrong.

The question had 3 sentences and seemed to deal with government.  Followed by however something something something.  The last sentence appeared to be the conclusion but it was difficult to understand and talked about different policies.  I was like WTH?  Three of the answer choices were immediately knocked off.  One of the remaining stated the intermediate conclusion was the final conclusion.  The last one just said something like "policies should be changed."
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: cascagrossa on December 07, 2004, 10:03:50 AM

Did anyone else get a pattern of EEE for three questions near the very end of the second LR section (the one that counted and the one with 25 questions) - I think for questions 22-23-24 - or something like that?

yes i think i did, but i wasnt totally confident about all of them.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: MattyTO on December 07, 2004, 10:07:59 AM
For the tuition/credit one I narrowed it down to those two as well (Salaries and 1st year scholarships)

I ended up picking the scholarships because it directly related to students ability to pay - ie they could more afford to pay in 1st year because they had a scholarship, but didn't get it in subsequent years. 

The salaries was not a direct link because other areas of the budget could compensate for that item.

MM
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: cascagrossa on December 07, 2004, 10:10:54 AM
For the tuition/credit one I narrowed it down to those two as well (Salaries and 1st year scholarships)

I ended up picking the scholarships because it directly related to students ability to pay - ie they could more afford to pay in 1st year because they had a scholarship, but didn't get it in subsequent years. 

The salaries was not a direct link because other areas of the budget could compensate for that item.

MM

weird logic, thats the exact reason why i did NOT pick scholarships.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 10:12:16 AM
I picked the faculy salaries as not explaining the paradox.  It might have been a stretch but I thought the scholarships for first year students (and in subsequent years if they maintained high GPAs) might explain the paradox because it diverted funds (maybe loan funds or other $) from the students discussed in the stimulus - who were then forced to pay more out-of-pocket expenses themselves despite the fact that the fees per credit had not changed for them.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 10:14:52 AM
Does anyone else remember a Logical Completion question about if a company wants to be more efficient its necessary for it to implement a new system that allows tasks to be automated - or something like that - and this company has put in a new system that resembles its current practices so that it is likely that ...

- Something about efficiency - either the company or employees being more efficient ...
- Something about the employees picking up on the new system fairly easily ...

Or was this an experimental section question?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 07, 2004, 10:41:07 AM
I think that could have been experimental, it isn't ringing a bell at all....
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lsatposter on December 07, 2004, 10:47:25 AM
There was a question about rain,farmers,and gvt action. Was this on the experimental?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lle on December 07, 2004, 01:15:35 PM
There was a complete the argument question, but I forget the details.  I think the answer is just the point of the passage.  This might have been in the experimental LR section.


The rain/government/farmer question was slightly tricky.  It was about events which caused farm production to decline, which affected other people such as truckers, and in turn, when truckers buy less fuel they affected fuel producers.

Lack of rain was used as just one example of what might set this chain off, and one or two of the answers stated rain.  I chose the answer which stated something to the effect "reduction in farming causes other industries to decline."

A couple of other answer choices involve just fuel producers or just truckers, but they really didn't have enough detail for me to feel they were correct answers.

LL
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lsatposter on December 07, 2004, 01:17:54 PM
hey, but was that experimental?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: blinkuldhc on December 07, 2004, 02:36:16 PM
it wasn't experimental. i am 100% sure. I only had 2 LR sections
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: veedonfleece on December 07, 2004, 02:39:32 PM
I picked the faculy salaries as not explaining the paradox.  It might have been a stretch but I thought the scholarships for first year students (and in subsequent years if they maintained high GPAs) might explain the paradox because it diverted funds (maybe loan funds or other $) from the students discussed in the stimulus - who were then forced to pay more out-of-pocket expenses themselves despite the fact that the fees per credit had not changed for them.

Salaries is the answer (the only choice that would not directly affect student's net expense for eduction).  I believe there was universal concensus on this within a few hours after the test.  Lets put this one to rest...
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lsatposter on December 07, 2004, 02:43:23 PM
ok, here's something strange: The rain question I mentioned above come in my section 3 I believe.  I had 3 LR sections. Could someone name one or two other questions that were in the same section as the rain question. Was the one about economists measure of value in that section?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 07, 2004, 03:13:12 PM
The rain question definitely wasn't in the experimental because I had it too.  I also put that reduction in farming causes other industries to decline.  Nice, we remembered another question!
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lsatposter on December 07, 2004, 03:15:48 PM
what else was in that section?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 03:30:03 PM
Does anyone remember a question about anoles - some lizard - and the question asked to strengthen the argument about the population of lizards on one group of island versus another group of islands?  This may have been on the experimental section ...
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 07, 2004, 03:32:47 PM
That seems like something I would have remembered, and it's not ringing any bells, I'd guess experimental.. but who knows
Title: Blueberries and pie....
Post by: pizzaman on December 07, 2004, 03:38:23 PM
something about the size of blueberries and the effect on the dye in the pie...
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 03:41:15 PM
Starresky: I also had the experimental LR section - so I'm not sure about whether all the questions I remember were in the scored sections.  I think the question had to do with a hurrcance that hit a group of islands - and on one set of islands the population of anoles reestablished itself fairly quickly - but on the other set of islands it did not - and the conclusion stated that the difference had to do with on the second set of islands the anoles had natural predators - and not sure I remember the rest.

There was also an assumption question about there not being ice ages that follow each large meteor crash into the earth -- but not sure if that was also experimental.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 07, 2004, 03:43:08 PM
Oh I think I remember that anoles one now.  And I had a RC experimental
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: arc87 on December 07, 2004, 03:44:42 PM
I cannot believe nobody can remember a justify the conclusion question.

It was the one of 26 and it was like number 19 or something.  Extremely difficult question.  The answer I believe was the only one that contained a conditional statement from teh conclusion.  

Does this ring any bells?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 07, 2004, 03:48:30 PM
They make it worse by re-using topics (i.e. extinction, meteors)
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: woogu on December 07, 2004, 03:59:14 PM
So what is the correct answer choice for the meteorite question

Does anyone remember what letter it was or the exact wording of close to it for the answer
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 04:02:37 PM
I'm not sure if the Assumption question involving the meteor was experimental or not -- but I think I chose C - something about the argument assuming that every (or most) large meteor impacts would be followed by an ice age.  BUT I'm very unsure bout that as an answer - so grain of salt ...  
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: KatieManley01 on December 07, 2004, 04:04:19 PM
Lizards must have been the experimental...
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 07, 2004, 05:29:42 PM
ditto, lizards had to have been experimental.

Oh, can someone please tell me if the meteorite/ice age answer contained the words 'NEAR FUTURE' in it?

Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 07, 2004, 05:38:05 PM
It said we can be sure there will be another in the near future
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: BM2004 on December 07, 2004, 05:40:09 PM
There were two meteor questions:
1- Assumption question talking about how not every meteor impact was followed by an ice age so there was no relationship between the two.
2- Flaw question talking about a large asteroid impact averages every so number of years - we haven't had one yet - so we must be due to be hit "soon." Something along those lines.

I know the Flaw question was in one of the scored sections - but was the Assumption question?
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: rosemaryblue on December 07, 2004, 05:40:47 PM
It said we can be sure there will be another in the near future

and that was the correct answer? yee haw! ty
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: bhvexille on December 07, 2004, 05:42:47 PM
The correct answer pointed out the fact that it's irrational to conclude that something will happen in the near future based solely on an average
Title: Re: last two questions on first LR
Post by: lawguru on December 07, 2004, 05:44:21 PM
do you all remember the last two questions on the first section of LR?
i think i either put B or D for either..wanted to see if i guessed right..i didn't have time to finish those two.
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lsatposter on December 07, 2004, 05:48:39 PM
was the answer to the ice age question that it pushes a certain policy precsription (to start planning) based on evidence that only deals with something that's loosely probable. Something like that/
Title: Re: LR sections
Post by: lawguru on December 07, 2004, 05:55:03 PM
what was the stimulus again?
o, is that the one about ice age coming in 100000 yaers?
if so, answers on the rest of the board