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.

Topics - MHLM

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Studying for the LSAT / 2 more LR questions from PT29
« on: February 05, 2008, 07:48:10 AM »
Section 1: #22
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear
power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's
fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless.
The government also contends that its recent action to
limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case
of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the
need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of
bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited
liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be
sustained against the industry; and the government
admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must
result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear,
therefore, is well founded.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most
helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?


(A) If the government claims that something is unsafe
then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary, that thing should be assumed to
be unsafe.

(B) Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well
founded if those who have control over the
occurrence of events of that kind stand to benefit
financially from such an occurrence.

(C) If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only
because the financial security of those
responsible for its operation depends on its being
safe, then eliminating that dependence is not in
the best interests of the public.

(D) The government sometimes makes unsupported
claims about what situations will arise, but it
does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation
from arising unless there is a real danger that
such a situation will arise.

(E) If a real financial threat to a major injury exists,
then government action to limit that threat is
justified.

I got really hung up on wording with this one and stupidly chose (B) because it addressed the specific wording of the conclusion: "fear....is well founded..." Can someone try and explain the reasoning here and how to arrive at the CR?


Section 4: #13
Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of
sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the
atmosphere by using a new process. This new process
requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones
and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in
solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new
equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new
process also costs more to run than the current process,
because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled.
So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but
bring the company no profit.

Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but
I disagree about one point you make, since the latest
closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

The point about which the supervisor expresses
disagreement with the plant manager is


(B) whether the new copper-smelting process is more
expensive to run than the current process

(E) whether cooling and reheating the copper will
cost more than moving it in molten form

It came down to (B) and (E) for me. I selected (E) thinking that both speakers would probably have agreed with statement (B). I guess I don't really understand how the supervisor could believe that the new process is NOT more expensive than the old process, yet also admit that "adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit."

Thanks for your help!

2
Studying for the LSAT / PrepTest 29: Weaken Question
« on: February 03, 2008, 01:37:31 PM »
16. We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished
culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that
the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the
language from which all Indo-European languages
descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean
or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for
"sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and
"wolf."

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?

(A) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people
who spoke Proto-Indo-European.

(B) Some languages lack words for prominent
elements of the environments of their speakers.

OK, I chose (A) thinking that it would make the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises--if Proto-Indo-European (P-I-E) had a word for "fish," wouldn't that make the author of the argument more likely to rethink his conclusion that those who spoke P-I-E lived in a cold climate isolated from sea and ocean?

Also, I don't understand why the credited response is correct. Even if (B) were true, couldn't the author just reply by saying well, "P-I-E isn't one of those languages lacking words for prominent elements of their speakers' environments"? I just don't see (B) weakening the argument.

Please help. Thanks!

3
Studying for the LSAT / Quick formal logic question
« on: February 01, 2008, 03:52:34 PM »
I hope I don't freak out any of tomorrow's test-takers. I'm prepping for June and just had a quick question--no need to raise anxieties for the February examinees, who should be off relaxing right now, not reading this!! :)

Ok, I'm working on a Must Be True problem that has the phrase "few cowards fail to be fools". The LRB says "a few" is a "some" indicator, but with "fail" added to the mix, it kind of threw me for a loop. Would it translate to "some cowards are not fools" or "most cowards are fools" or something else entirely? Thanks for the help!!

(Good luck to everyone taking the test tomorrow who does happen to read this!)

4
Has anyone else seen an excessive number of ads with Huckabee inveighing against the IRS? This is particularly confusing to me considering my state has already had its primary and Huck's not the guy with superfluous campaign money to be throwing around. What's the deal?

5
General Off-Topic Board / Random grammar question
« on: January 26, 2008, 01:54:21 PM »
Which is correct?

A) She cites reading books and magazines as a favorite hobby.

B) She cites reading books and magazines as favorite hobbies.

I'm not sure if "reading books and magazines" is considered a compound direct object or not. Please help. Thanks!!

6
General Off-Topic Board / Anyone watching the Democratic CNN Debate?
« on: January 21, 2008, 08:30:40 PM »
It's getting ugly.

Barack: "Hillary, while I was on the streets of Chicago helping people who were losing their jobs, you were a corporate lawyer on the board of WalMart." (paraphrased)

Hillary: "Barack, you were representing slum landlords in inner city Chicago" (also paraphrased)

This is good $hit.

7
Law School Applications / ? RE: How Schools Report The LSAT
« on: January 17, 2008, 08:48:43 PM »
Let's say Candidate applies Early Decision to School X in September with an LSAT of 163, which is below the school's 25th percentile. Knowing that s/he is borderline, Candidate registers for the December LSAT (let's say it's on the 5th). Then, on December 15th, Candidate is accepted to School X--yay! Then, a week later, Candidate receives December LSAT score: 170!! Now, my question is: do schools have to report the score from which they made their decision to accept Candidate or can they report Candidate as a 170?

Anyone know...?

8
Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly
while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents.
When ordered by chess officials to cease humming or else
be disqualified from professional chess, Marianne protested
the order. She argued that since she was unaware of her
humming, her humming was involuntary and that
therefore she should not be held responsible for it.

25. Which one of the following, if true, most undermines
Marianne's argument against the order?

(C) Not all of a person's involuntary actions are
actions of which that person is unaware.

(D) A person who hums involuntarily can easily
learn to notice it and can thereby come to
control it.

I diagrammed the following:
U --> I --> HR (U=unaware, I=involuntary, HR=held responsible)

Then for choice (C): I --some--> U
I figured that if involuntary actions can occur when someone is AWARE, this would weaken the U --> HR inference from the stimulus.

Obviously my logic is off here as (D) is the correct response. Can someone help explain please?

I do see that I kind of reversed the arrows in my thought process, but I'm still not sure why (D) is correct.

9
General Off-Topic Board / Volunteering Abroad
« on: January 11, 2008, 08:00:46 AM »
Hi guys:

Since I may very well be reapplying to law school for fall '09, I was thinking about volunteering abroad at some point in the next year. Has anyone done this? If so, can you tell me a bit about your experience such as what organization you did it through, where you went, and your overall impression of the trip.

Thanks!

10
Studying for the LSAT / RC ? from June '07 LSAT
« on: January 06, 2008, 06:24:24 PM »
Hi guys:

I need some help with a main point question from the June 2007 LSAT, the one posted on LSAC.org. It's from Section 4 and the question number is 15. The passage is about copyright law and distribution of intellectual property on the Web.

I easily eliminated choices (B), (C), and (D). Neither (A) nor (E) seemed like a perfect fit, but I chose (E) as the lesser of two evils because (A) was simply too narrow and obscure in my mind to be considered the author's main point. I understand that the language in (E) is probably extreme. The author doesn't explicitly say that a free exchange of ideas on the Web would offer benefits that would FAR outweigh those that might be gained by a few people if copyright laws were further restricted, but the author does clearly state in the last sentence that "changing property law to benefit owners [...] is ill-advised because" it would jeopardize the "free exchange of ideas".

If someone could explain why (A) is the CR and (E) is not, that would really be appreciated. I know (A) is true, but it certainly wasn't what I deemed the author's main point to convey in writing this piece.

Thanks in advance!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4