Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Bella

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
1
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Answers for June 2005
« on: June 04, 2007, 02:48:18 PM »
I guess, nobody has it either...
I'm still hoping.  Thank you (I guess personal messaging isn't the same as posting on the forum?)

2
Studying for the LSAT / Answers for June 2005
« on: June 04, 2007, 02:14:11 PM »
This is the most inconsistent thing to do: to finish the test and then find out that I don't have the answers for it :'(.  If somebody can help me with it, I'll really appreciate it.  Thank you in advance!

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: October 94, LR 1, question 24
« on: May 23, 2007, 04:58:03 PM »
Thank you, guys. It really starts making sense.  If I could eliminate that C answer, then the only left would've been A.  Now I see, why C is incorrect.

Very helpful, thanks!!!

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: October 94, LR 1, question 24
« on: May 23, 2007, 09:39:28 AM »
Hi guys, I have another question:

It's from the Power Score supplemental materials.
Why (A) and not (C)? And what type of a flaw is it according to the PS bible?
I thought it's from "some evidence for a theory is taken as the theory is proved"

Thank you in advance

They did not show why the source of the titanium ink had to be from Gutenburg rather than from another person that may have written B-36. 

It only posited a correlation of the data.

Then it runs along and uses the supposed connection as the basis to dispute the contention that someone else wrote B-36.

The words 'solely' and 'single" make (C) fall apart


But what about those "was and was not extremely restricted"? What does is mean. I didn't see anything about any restrictions. It sounds like the type "internal contradiction" according to the PS Bible, but is there a contradiction?

5
Studying for the LSAT / October 94, LR 1, question 24
« on: May 23, 2007, 06:15:42 AM »
Hi guys, I have another question:

It's from the Power Score supplemental materials.
Why (A) and not (C)? And what type of a flaw is it according to the PS bible?
I thought it's from "some evidence for a theory is taken as the theory is proved"

Thank you in advance

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Feb. 1995 LR 2, Q. 13
« on: May 20, 2007, 10:34:49 PM »
Thank you so much! Starting to make sense.

Thanks again :)


Addiction <---> dependence + abuse

~dependence OR ~abuse <-----> ~addiction

BUT, dependence and abuse do not always go together.

Example: CP are dependent on drugs for pain relief, but they are not abusing the drugs.

ALSO: A person can abuse drugs without being dependent.

Therefore, the definition is wrong.


Cancer patient example is only relevant if we assume that the cancer patient is addicted.



Take notice of the conditional nature of the definition and the contrapositive. What the stimulus author is trying to do is undermine the definition and say that it doesn't apply to certain situations and is therefore wrong. So he employs certain examples to prove his conclusion. But what if the cancer patient ISN'T addicted...which would make perfect sense if he wasn't abusing the drug. His example serves to weaken the definition only if it runs contrary to our conditional statement. If we don't assume that the cancer patient is addicted, then we have not violated the statement either way.
Addiction <---> dependence + abuse

~dependence OR ~abuse <-----> ~addiction

BUT, dependence and abuse do not always go together.

Example: CP are dependent on drugs for pain relief, but they are not abusing the drugs.

ALSO: A person can abuse drugs without being dependent.

Therefore, the definition is wrong.


Cancer patient example is only relevant if we assume that the cancer patient is addicted.



Take notice of the conditional nature of the definition and the contrapositive. What the stimulus author is trying to do is undermine the definition and say that it doesn't apply to certain situations and is therefore wrong. So he employs certain examples to prove his conclusion. But what if the cancer patient ISN'T addicted...which would make perfect sense if he wasn't abusing the drug. His example serves to weaken the definition only if it runs contrary to our conditional statement. If we don't assume that the cancer patient is addicted, then we have not violated the statement either way.

7
Studying for the LSAT / Feb. 1995 LR 2, Q. 13
« on: May 20, 2007, 05:07:53 PM »
Hi guys,

If somebody can help me with the explanation of this answer choice (it's from the supplemental materials Power Score) I'll really appreciate it as always...  The correct answer is C, but I don't understand why. Maybe I didn't fully understand the question stem in a normal language?  I realize that it's an assumption Q.

Thank you in advance.

8
Thank you Theo!

Although I didn't see C as a perfect feet, I chose it, because the rest didn't make sense to me.  That was a twisted one. But when you "translated" it - I see why it's a right answer choice.

Thanks again.

9
I apologize in case if somebody already asked about it. But if somebody has a minute to help - thank you in advance.

10
Thank you so-so-so much!!! Really, I can't express how much I appreciate your help, guys :-*

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11