Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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

Messages - dvcpluto

Pages: [1] 2
Hey guys - so from Section 2, regarding the paradox with the anchovies/sardines(?) and why the decreased level of algae showed it was safe for people to eat them:

I think the stimulus said something like, people ate some sardines from the ocean and became sick because of a toxin (started with the letter 'd') found in the sardine and for awhile, people were not allowed to eat the sardines.  However, when a certain species of algae population decreased, the restriction was lifted.  The answer choices I narrowed it down to were 1.) that the algae secrete small amounts of the toxin and the sardines eat them and 2.) a large algae population cannot sustain itself when the level of the toxin has decreased (?) something like that.  So I chose the latter because less toxin means less chance of the sardines becoming contaminated, kind of like a past question about "indicator species".  So the algae population acts as an indicator that the toxin level is low. 

Anyone else know what the answer would be or if I'm on the right track?

Hmmm...I remember that the key to this question was that the stim said something along the lines of: "the sardines are unsafe to eat when the level of algae is 'substantial'" or something like that. Was there an answer choice about a dramatic decrease in the algae population which made the toxin drop to levels that are no longer harmful? I think that was what i put...

Yes this is TCR.

About the ADD study, I chose the answer that had the groups in situations that already promoted hyper actions... as the stimulus has been laid out, this is not the best answer.  However, I don't remember an answer choice being as clear cut as alternative sweeteners also promote hyperness.  However, if this was an answer choice, it seems right now.  Nonethelsess, the idea that kids with ADD and kids without ADD would increase their hyper actions at consistent rates from different baselines does not hold, and doesn't disqualify my answer choice.

A question I haven't heard mentioned is one concerning two models for life expectancy.  I think its an inference question, but it might have been on my experimental.  Sound familiar to anyone?

Ah, yes, i do remember a life expectancy one...def not experimental. It was something about one model predicting that the upper limit of people's lives are 110-125 and another 105-115 (dont remember the exact numbers but you get the idea). There were no known instances of people living to 120. Think TCR was something like "one model fits the data better than another does"

Edit: Somebody please add this to the Master List...that's 49/50 now. yay

I also remember this, and also think I put the response listed above, anyone remember what type of question this was?

I put the same response.  But... I think the larger limit was 130 and the smaller was 124.  And the data fit the 124 better.

I didn't think this one was hard, but it was a bit time-consuming.

There were no suburbs!!  It was the same answer, but with "small cities" instead!

Studying for the LSAT / Re: 12/05 RC PostMortem
« on: December 03, 2006, 03:35:48 AM »
I'm pretty sure that the answer "researchers need to make more breakthroughs before it is viable" is not TCR. The author continually stressed that legal decisions are left intentionally vauge, and computer programs are inheriently incapable of picking up the subtleties.

Totally agreed. 

Totally disagreed. The author repeatedly says that today's computers are incapable of picking up subtleties, but if there is a breakthrough in artificial intelligence that could simulate the reasoning neccessary to pick up subtleties,  they could.

I agree with you.  I think it is the correct answer, and I think it was pretty clearly spelled out in the last paragraph.  It would take breakthroughs in computers' capabilities for this to work.

I don't remember the damming question very well.  Can someone elaborate on it?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Answers for Clown Game
« on: December 03, 2006, 03:29:22 AM »
Hey, was wondering if anyone could confirm the answer choices for the 1st clown game

I had

Left this for last so had to rush through and wanted to double check

How do you people remember the letters of the answers???  Do you go back to your answer sheet and try to memorize it?

i picked the one that said something along the lines of

singers shouldn't attempt hard songs without "many years?" of training...

i thought this might be wrong because of the many years of training..but it wsa the onely one that referred to training so i picked it anyway.

because the question stated that it wasn't because their voices lacked maturity but because they lacked proper training....

Yes!  I almost picked that one, but then I realized it wasn't correct  because the stim doesn't say anything about "many years" of training.  It just says most young singers do not have the formal training necessary to avoid straining vocal cords.

The answer I chose was most young singers strain their vocal cords.

Because if the formal training is *necessary* to avoid straining... and most of them don't have it... seems like it fits.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Moon reading comp
« on: December 03, 2006, 03:14:31 AM »

      - Weaken: that the rock found on Earth is discovered to be from the Moon?

For this one I put that no craters were found on Mars from between 5 and 3 billion years ago... but depending on how it was worded, this could be wrong, because I remember that one of the theories said that it could have been localized  between the earth and the moon.

Same here, I think.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: December POST GAMES MORTEM
« on: December 03, 2006, 03:13:14 AM »
I tried to get that stupid clown suit 'set up' & finally gave up.  I just shorthanded the 'rules' and worked it out from there. . .basically in my head - using two columns 2 columns as visuals.  It got much easier after that.  Those motels & CD got me going.   ???  Really struggled with the CD & couldn't get my brain around those motels.  Just when I thought I had the motels all lined out (question 4) question 5 (I think) came along with a 'if this one comes first' kind of thing, worded in such a way that it was feasible (& not just pertinent to that question) & all was lost. . . . really blew me then on the last game.  In fact, don't even remember it.  Really.

But anyway - no set up for the clowns.

Same here... I didn't do any set up.  I put down the rules and worked out one hypothetical, then got to the questions. 

Yeah, I agree... I don't think the "suburbs" existed.  It was small cities... 3.

Pages: [1] 2