Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: AMTK on October 06, 2006, 09:02:22 AM

Title: deleting out
Post by: AMTK on October 06, 2006, 09:02:22 AM
sorry
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: LSATitUpToHereWithThis on October 06, 2006, 09:13:05 AM
Can you clarify some of these issues?

The Insomnia LR question. I remember there being 1 obvious choice, but apparently there were a number of slightly different and confusing responses. What's the deal?

For the following, do you remember any options other than the given, unchallenged TCRs?:

     Exercise and Diet as effective as medicine
          Changes in diet and exercise have none or less side effects than taking medicine.

     People who are not constantly aware of the world have clouded vision, people who are constantly aware of the world are overcitical and have tainted minds.
          People with untainted minds have clouded vision.

     We can't know someone's intentions, we can only know the consequences of their actions, so we can judge morality only based on consequences of actions.
          Knowing intentions is indispensible to moral judgement.

     Walking with street lights v. against them.
          Fails to consider frequency of the two samples.

RC   Definition of "basins of influence"
          All the water at any point flowed to the same body of water.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:14:22 AM
Question 3 is what seperates the men from the boys. Different levels of impairment was the correct answer.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:16:20 AM
1.) The 50th LR question was about a car advertisement stating that the car had good breaks + a unique feature that made it even safer and the car was therefore the best in its class.  It was in the top right corner of the page and was somewhere between 8-15 on the LR that didn't have the psychiatrist question.

You know what, I missed that whole discussion and thought it was about the ABS brakes question from 10/05, but you're right.  I have a pretty good memory and this question was definitely on the test.  Don't remember breaks being mentioned specifically, but the stimulus said that people who care about safety should buy Brand X, because it has the unique/patented/most advanced anti-slip or something feature than others in its class.  The flaw/assumption in the correct asnwer was the the author assumes other cars in that class do not have their own anti-slip, etc. feature that is different from Brand X yet still effective in making those cars safe.

Duhon, can you add it to the master list?
Even though this is a word for word description of Dec 05's question? I think you are more likely to be mistaken than the supposition that the lsac was dumb enough to repeat the same question so soon. I agree they may repeat some older questions, but this is almost a question from the last test...
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:20:13 AM
Question 3 is what seperates the men from the boys. Different levels of impairment was the correct answer.


Depends on how you remember the stimulus.  I can see it going either way, but iirc, it was blood flow.  Admittedly, I may have misread the stimulus.  This is the one I'm least sure of.
The thing is i remember the stimulus pretty well, but i can still see it going either way. I spent like 5 minutes on this question...
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: carthageinruins on October 06, 2006, 09:24:03 AM
I remember it too. The car model started with a c, the claim being made was that it was safer than any other car in its class because of some system it had---and it was the only one in its class to have that system. the answer had something to do with the fact that the claim doesnt prove another car couldnt be just as safe or something using an analogous, but different system.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:24:48 AM
1.) The 50th LR question was about a car advertisement stating that the car had good breaks + a unique feature that made it even safer and the car was therefore the best in its class.  It was in the top right corner of the page and was somewhere between 8-15 on the LR that didn't have the psychiatrist question.

You know what, I missed that whole discussion and thought it was about the ABS brakes question from 10/05, but you're right.  I have a pretty good memory and this question was definitely on the test.  Don't remember breaks being mentioned specifically, but the stimulus said that people who care about safety should buy Brand X, because it has the unique/patented/most advanced anti-slip or something feature than others in its class.  The flaw/assumption in the correct asnwer was the the author assumes other cars in that class do not have their own anti-slip, etc. feature that is different from Brand X yet still effective in making those cars safe.

Duhon, can you add it to the master list?
Even though this is a word for word description of Dec 05's question? I think you are more likely to be mistaken than the supposition that the lsac was dumb enough to repeat the same question so soon. I agree they may repeat some older questions, but this is almost a question from the last test...

It's not the word-for-word description.  I took both tests and the questions were different.  The one being discussed made no mention of ABS breaks, and the stimulus was different.  I did have LR experimental and it could have been on the experimental, otherwise I'd willing to put good money on the fact that it's from this test.
I dont know, if you look back at Dec 05, LR 2, question 20, i think you'll find an almost identical question you are talking about.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:29:18 AM
All right, to all those who still doubt:

"Advertisement: The country classic is the only kind of car in its class that offers an anti-lock bracking system  that includes TrackAid. An antilock braking system keeps your wheels from locking up during hard braking, and TrackAid keeps your rear wheels from spinning on slippery surfaces. So if you are a safety conscious person in the market for a car in this class, the Country Classic is the only car for you"

The advertisement is misleading if which one of the following is true?

Correct: Other cars in the same class as country classic offer an antilock braking system that uses a method other than TrackAid to prevent rear wheels from spinning on slippery surfaces

 
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: LSATitUpToHereWithThis on October 06, 2006, 09:38:30 AM
Thanks FJ
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: sladkaya on October 06, 2006, 09:38:37 AM
I dont know, if you look back at Dec 05, LR 2, question 20, i think you'll find an almost identical question you are talking about.

OK, I just went and looked at 12/05 ABS question and it is ridiculously similar to the question I saw on the test, to the point where several answer choices follow the same pattern.  However, I did not imagine that question, it was there.  I'm starting to lean towards the fact that it was on experimental.  My experimental LR had several questions that were similar to questions on previous tests, and even had a question identical to the crossing the street on green light (except with sharks and swimming after dark).  Does everyone who remembers this question had experimental LR?
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:40:20 AM
I reasoned as follows:
For climbers, the conclusion was pretty much "because all different functions were impaired, this proves that speech is not controlled by a distinct part of one's brain"
Debated answers:
A- Entire brain; at first i thought this was it. I thought maybe if the entire brain was affected than both the speech part of the brain was impaired and the other parts of the brain. So this does not rule out the possibility that the speech part of the brain is distinct. But then i thought, suppose the argument says that the entire brain is responsible for all of the actions described,  and that speech is not distinct from those other parts. Then the fact that the entire brain was affected does not hurt the argument.

C- i thought that if speech is impaired more or less than movement and that is impaired more or less than thought process, than it shows that all three are probably distinct. For it seems that if they were not distinct that all would be impaired relatively equally, because all the parts of the brain are equally deprived of oxygen. So this answer to me denied this nec. assumption.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:43:04 AM
Furthermore, the stimulus simply said that the climbers slurred their speech, were bad at moving and slow at thinking. But it does not address the degree of these impairments. If they slurred their speech a lot but were a little of balance, than this seems to suggest that the speech part of the brain is different and was affected differently.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: carthageinruins on October 06, 2006, 09:49:16 AM
Would someone care to address why the TCR is more correct than the minority answer for this question?

13. What would the author be most likely to agree with?
ANSWER: Convinced that modern bankruptcy laws do not need to be modified.
MINORITY: Approves the changing of previously inefficient laws


Since the entire passage is about how beneficial the changes to inefficient punitive bankruptcy laws were, I dont see how the minority answer can in any way be wrong, but I can see how the TCR might be wrong. the author never says the laws need no further modification or tweaking. Modification doesnt have to mean that the laws would revert back to being more punitive, it could mean anything. I can see how this answer might be correct, but I cant see why it is MORE correct than the minority answer, which I see as being the safer response.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 09:58:34 AM
I reasoned as follows:
For climbers, the conclusion was pretty much "because all different functions were impaired, this proves that speech is not controlled by a distinct part of one's brain"
Debated answers:
A- Entire brain; at first i thought this was it. I thought maybe if the entire brain was affected than both the speech part of the brain was impaired and the other parts of the brain. So this does not rule out the possibility that the speech part of the brain is distinct. But then i thought, suppose the argument says that the entire brain is responsible for all of the actions described,  and that speech is not distinct from those other parts. Then the fact that the entire brain was affected does not hurt the argument.

C- i thought that if speech is impaired more or less than movement and that is impaired more or less than thought process, than it shows that all three are probably distinct. For it seems that if they were not distinct that all would be impaired relatively equally, because all the parts of the brain are equally deprived of oxygen. So this answer to me denied this nec. assumption.



What if speech is just a more sensitive thing? Like the brain part is hit by so much oxyg. deprivation and it just falls apart? Who knows?


As for A, what you say is just... pushing the boundaries. I think C doesn't weaken at all, while A if you @#!* around w/ it might not. C just never weakens for me. Plus, knowing that the brain has several parts which do different things seems like a common sense assumption to me.

No it's not common sense, as it was denied by the conclusion which said that speech is not distinct from other parts of one's brain.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: bonkers1234 on October 06, 2006, 10:05:33 AM
guys, the reason the entire brain one is right is this:

even if they were affected to different degrees, you don't know that that's just how those parts of the brain work-- even if they are located together. maybe the same amount of oxygen deprivation causes you to realllly slur your speech but doesn't make you walk worse. to me, this answer choice never weakened it.

however, if you say that the damage affected the whole brain, you have much less reason to conclude that the part for speech must be near or next to the others.

i didn't think this one was that hard...
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: Root Hog on October 06, 2006, 10:14:29 AM
Would someone care to address why the TCR is more correct than the minority answer for this question?

13. What would the author be most likely to agree with?
ANSWER: Convinced that modern bankruptcy laws do not need to be modified.
MINORITY: Approves the changing of previously inefficient laws


I was with the majority on this answer. However, upon further reflection, if we have the stimulus and answers correct, the answer is obviously the minority one. Based on the author's analysis of current law and his advocacy for not returning to punitive laws, the majority answer is definately a ststement that he would second, but the majority answer is too extreme to assume that he would agree. Dammit
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: carthageinruins on October 06, 2006, 10:20:00 AM
yeah, after thinking about why I chose (the current) minority answer, I realized why I had chosen it instead of the one about there being no need for further modification---something that was never explicitly stated in the passage.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: carthageinruins on October 06, 2006, 10:30:52 AM
my question is this.........why on earth did someone decide that the current TCR is correct when it seems pretty easy to dismantle?
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 10:33:24 AM
guys, the reason the entire brain one is right is this:

even if they were affected to different degrees, you don't know that that's just how those parts of the brain work-- even if they are located together. maybe the same amount of oxygen deprivation causes you to realllly slur your speech but doesn't make you walk worse. to me, this answer choice never weakened it.

however, if you say that the damage affected the whole brain, you have much less reason to conclude that the part for speech must be near or next to the others.

i didn't think this one was that hard...
Well we're just trying to find a flaw in the argument. The premises said something like this "the climbers showed impairment in speech, movement and thinking". The conclusion said "from this we can conclude that speech part of the brain is definately not distinct from the other parts of the brain".
The flaw here is not that the argument overlooks that the whole brain lacked oxygen. In fact it probably considers it, because it wouldn't be logically possible for some parts of the brain to have more oxygen than others at the same altitude. After all, the different parts of ones brain are not going to be in different altitudes.
What we need to do is counter the conclusion, and show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is the whole idea of identifying the flaw of the argument. Now suppose the conclusion is correct, and the part of the brain responsible for speech is also responsible say for movement. This is one part of the brain, and if it is affected by the lack of oxygen it would have to show equal level of impairments for both movement and speech. The reason for this is that it is the same part of the brain. If it is very susceptible to the lack of oxygen, then it won't be able to function well in both areas; that is it won't be able to perform both its speech function and movement function perfectly. But it is incosnistant to think that it's speech function is impaired only a very slightly while its movement function is impaired greatly, or vice versa. I think in a case like this it is more logical to infer that two different areas of one's brain are responsible for these functions, and that one area is more susceptible to lack of oxygen than the other.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: Root Hog on October 06, 2006, 10:34:26 AM
I wonder if we re4started polls on some of these debated questions, if the results would change significantly? I wonder if debate has changed anyone's minds? I know of at least two that I originally defended on which I now have been persuaded that I was wrong? Anyone else?
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 10:36:22 AM
guys, the reason the entire brain one is right is this:

even if they were affected to different degrees, you don't know that that's just how those parts of the brain work-- even if they are located together. maybe the same amount of oxygen deprivation causes you to realllly slur your speech but doesn't make you walk worse. to me, this answer choice never weakened it.

however, if you say that the damage affected the whole brain, you have much less reason to conclude that the part for speech must be near or next to the others.

i didn't think this one was that hard...
Well we're just trying to find a flaw in the argument. The premises said something like this "the climbers showed impairment in speech, movement and thinking". The conclusion said "from this we can conclude that speech part of the brain is definately not distinct from the other parts of the brain".
The flaw here is not that the argument overlooks that the whole brain lacked oxygen. In fact it probably considers it, because it wouldn't be logically possible for some parts of the brain to have more oxygen than others at the same altitude. After all, the different parts of ones brain are not going to be in different altitudes.
What we need to do is counter the conclusion, and show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is the whole idea of identifying the flaw of the argument. Now suppose the conclusion is correct, and the part of the brain responsible for speech is also responsible say for movement. This is one part of the brain, and if it is affected by the lack of oxygen it would have to show equal level of impairments for both movement and speech. The reason for this is that it is the same part of the brain. If it is very susceptible to the lack of oxygen, then it won't be able to function well in both areas; that is it won't be able to perform both its speech function and movement function perfectly. But it is incosnistant to think that it's speech function is impaired only a very slightly while its movement function is impaired greatly, or vice versa. I think in a case like this it is more logical to infer that two different areas of one's brain are responsible for these functions, and that one area is more susceptible to lack of oxygen than the other.

Heh, these discussions always make me smile... mostly because it doesn't matter ^_^
I know, but i'm still quite positive my answer is going to be correct.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: bonkers1234 on October 06, 2006, 10:45:03 AM
eh, i dunno. i still think it's a leap to say that just because they are near eachother (i'm pretty sure the stimulus did not stipulate they had to be THE EXACT SAME PART of the brain) that they have to be affected equally. even if they are in the same part of the brain, i would have no problem with a certain amount of oxygen deprivation affecting the different abilities differently. however, by saying the "effects of ox. dep" affected the entire brain weakens it.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: .zone. on October 06, 2006, 12:09:47 PM
I am pretty sure lonewolf is 100% right that the car ad question is a past one, not from this exam.  The question you describe is just like the one he posted and I'm 100% positive that car ad question was NOT on the exam I took last Saturday.  I've recognized every other LR that's been posted as being on my exam, but I am positive that car ad one wasn't.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: .zone. on October 06, 2006, 12:25:04 PM
I am pretty sure lonewolf is 100% right that the car ad question is a past one, not from this exam.  The question you describe is just like the one he posted and I'm 100% positive that car ad question was NOT on the exam I took last Saturday.  I've recognized every other LR that's been posted as being on my exam, but I am positive that car ad one wasn't.

Your statement contains the assumption that this question was not on an experimental LR section  ;D

No.  I stated MY exam.  It was not on my exam and is therefore not the missing 50th question.  Wasn't on my LR experimental either though, but either way, it cannot be the missing question because if it was, it would have HAD to have been on my exam.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: sladkaya on October 06, 2006, 12:32:18 PM
I am pretty sure lonewolf is 100% right that the car ad question is a past one, not from this exam.  The question you describe is just like the one he posted and I'm 100% positive that car ad question was NOT on the exam I took last Saturday.  I've recognized every other LR that's been posted as being on my exam, but I am positive that car ad one wasn't.

Your statement contains the assumption that this question was not on an experimental LR section  ;D

No.  I stated MY exam.  It was not on my exam and is therefore not the missing 50th question.  Wasn't on my LR experimental either though, but either way, it cannot be the missing question because if it was, it would have HAD to have been on my exam.

There are sometimes more than one experimental LR section - it was certainly the case in December.  Search old posts if you don't believe me, but it's true. 

You said "it cannot be the missing question because if it was, it would have HAD to have been on my exam" - if you and I had a different LR experimental, and it was on mine and not yours, then the question was indeed on this exam, just on your version of it.

LOL.  I really should be working instead
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: wovst on October 06, 2006, 12:46:36 PM
can we go back to the smokers? check out last page.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,71646.0.html

what about the 2 different groups response?
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: James Madison on October 06, 2006, 05:14:21 PM
I wonder if we re4started polls on some of these debated questions, if the results would change significantly? I wonder if debate has changed anyone's minds? I know of at least two that I originally defended on which I now have been persuaded that I was wrong? Anyone else?

Which ones have you changed your mind on RootHog?
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: StudentUVA on October 06, 2006, 05:16:45 PM
Quote
All right, to all those who still doubt:

"Advertisement: The country classic is the only kind of car in its class that offers an anti-lock bracking system  that includes TrackAid. An antilock braking system keeps your wheels from locking up during hard braking, and TrackAid keeps your rear wheels from spinning on slippery surfaces. So if you are a safety conscious person in the market for a car in this class, the Country Classic is the only car for you"

The advertisement is misleading if which one of the following is true?

Correct: Other cars in the same class as country classic offer an antilock braking system that uses a method other than TrackAid to prevent rear wheels from spinning on slippery surfaces

Yep, I remember this question.

I can't remember if I picked the answer, though.

Was this a fairly easy question?

This was from an earlier test (the one above) BUT THERE WAS A CAR QUESTION ON THE EXAM. I'm beyond possitive. Was it a Corrington or something?
All right i must concede a point that when i thought about the car question i initially thought of something with a C, and suggested something along the lines of corrington. I think this is probably not a coincidence. In any case, that question was easy so i think we all got it right.
Title: Re: alright - since everyone is so confused I'll help answer all your questions
Post by: .zone. on October 07, 2006, 09:11:35 AM
I am pretty sure lonewolf is 100% right that the car ad question is a past one, not from this exam.  The question you describe is just like the one he posted and I'm 100% positive that car ad question was NOT on the exam I took last Saturday.  I've recognized every other LR that's been posted as being on my exam, but I am positive that car ad one wasn't.

Your statement contains the assumption that this question was not on an experimental LR section  ;D

No.  I stated MY exam.  It was not on my exam and is therefore not the missing 50th question.  Wasn't on my LR experimental either though, but either way, it cannot be the missing question because if it was, it would have HAD to have been on my exam.

There are sometimes more than one experimental LR section - it was certainly the case in December.  Search old posts if you don't believe me, but it's true. 

You said "it cannot be the missing question because if it was, it would have HAD to have been on my exam" - if you and I had a different LR experimental, and it was on mine and not yours, then the question was indeed on this exam, just on your version of it.

LOL.  I really should be working instead

No again.  The missing question cannot come from an experimental section.  The missing question must come from a SCORED section.  Everyone has the same SCORED sections.  THEREFORE, the missing question DID have to be on my test.  If it was on your test and not mine, it was an experimental question--NOT the missing scored question!