« on: November 26, 2007, 11:12:41 AM »
What's wrong with Wallace? Wallace rules! Congrats on Boalt by the way!
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.
The key parts of the stimulis, given the question, are that forest fires help forests and that our attempts to stop them are short sighted and ill advised. This only follows if people are trying to stop them to help the forest. There are other reasons one might try to stop a forest fire, such as lives or property. The passage doesn't demonstrate that stopping forest fires for this reason is ill advised, only that it will hurt the forest. Therefore, it will follow if the nly reason we do it is for the sake of the fire.
Does this make sense?
I don't quite understand how you inferred from the stimulus that people are trying to stop the fires in order to help the forest. Couldn't attempting to stop the fire be due to other shortsighted reasons as well?
What do you mean by "it will follow if the nly reason we do it is for the sake of the fire"?
wow... there's nearly no one online right now. I need some distracting! It's going to be a long day up here in the great white north.
Wallace, if I had a 169 like you, the thought of re-taking would make me nauseous as well!
Gclemen, what's the difference between a 162 and 163?
That was just my personal number that I said I would be satisfied with, and if I scored lower, I would retake!
I'm retaking if not for any other reason than I know I can do better than a 163. Regardless of what people say about the test being equated etc..., The -8 = 170 scale of the June test was ridiculous; and it got me.