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 - beni

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12
1
Socratic Method / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: May 15, 2008, 02:06:03 PM »
Actually 0.999... (infinitely repeating) is equal to 1.  If you don't think so, then find another number that's in between 0.999... and 1.  There aren't any.

2
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how would you describe the flaw in this?
« on: October 19, 2007, 05:37:59 PM »
If you haven't figured this out by now you just aren't going to.  I'm going back to testing out my F5 key every thirty seconds to make sure it still works.  This thread has become "deleterious" to my afternoon.

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how would you describe the flaw in this?
« on: October 19, 2007, 04:41:48 PM »
Ummm...ok.  Flaws there:

1) Fewer people are dying in highway accidents than from smoking.  That doesn't indicate an underperforming project.

2) The musician spends more time practicing the instrument that isn't getting her gigs.  The CR suggests that she should shift resources from the instrument which is currently not doing well towards the one which is already doing well.

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how would you describe the flaw in this?
« on: October 19, 2007, 04:27:29 PM »
No, I think I'm accurate. Did I mis-state something? There's a problem with the notion of "strong" and "weak" since that dichotomy can indicate either well- or poorly-funded, or high or low likelihood of success. We need to distinguish.

Stimulus: project A (highway safety) is over-funded, currently ineffective, and unlikely to be effective
project B (anti-smoking) is currently ineffective, but is likely to be effective if better-funded
move funds from A to B

In the Stimulus and the correct answer, the recommended course of action is a trade off: weaken the currently strong one and strengthen the currently weak one. But in the incorrect answer, it's an augmentation: strengthen the currently strong one and weaken the currently weak one.



 ???

Those two paragraphs of yours don't agree with each other.  Project A is either ineffective (paragraph 1) or "strong" (paragraph 2).  Being both makes no sense.  The highway project is currently effective, relatively speaking.  Witness fewer deaths than those caused by cigarette smoking.

5
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how would you describe the flaw in this?
« on: October 19, 2007, 03:26:14 PM »

To put it all differently: in the stimulus and B, the deservingness of resources is in direct relation to the current weakness of the project: the worse it's doing, the more it should get new resources. But in D, the deservingness of resources is in opposite relation to its weakness (a.k.a. direct relation to its strength): the better it's doing, the more it should get new resources.



I think you've talked yourself in a circle there.  Answer choice B says that the musician should move resources away from the weak side (guitar) and towards the strong side (sax).  To use your phrasing - the better it's doing, the more it should get new resources.  That's exactly the opposite of the reasoning in the stem.

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how would you describe the flaw in this?
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:08:32 PM »
By the way, when I did try to set this up, it came out like this:

More resources for A
Fewer resources for B
A is better than B
Therefore, resources to B would have a net positive effect

Immediately, the flaw I saw was that shifting resources away from the thing that's working to the thing that isn't can't be properly assumed to have a net positive effect.

Choices B and D both exhibit that same logic as the stem, but in reverse - they say that shifting resources from the thing which isn't working as well to that which is would have a net positive effect.  That's what tripped me up forever...neither of them looked right.  Like I said, though, the error is in drawing the unwarranted inference and the number of variables involved, not in the particular nature of the inference.

7
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how would you describe the flaw in this?
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:00:26 PM »
I had a ton of trouble with that question too...got it wrong and couldn't figure out why for days.  It isn't an issue of diagramming, it's simply that it's talking about shifting resources from one area to another and inferring consequences that aren't fully supported.  Here are the two answers I couldn't decide between:

B) A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired much more often to play saxophone than to play guitar, so she would increase her number of playing engagements by spending less time practicing guitar and more time practicing saxophone.

D) The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke. But the team's lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets if it spent less time practicing the backstroke and more time practicing the breaststroke.


B is correct because it draws an unwarranted inference about the effect of shifting resources between two different areas.  D is incorrect because it does the same thing, but introduces the swim meet as a third variable.

Luckily, this test had -4 for a 180.  Only test I got a 180 on with 2 questions to spare.  :)

8
Studying for the LSAT / Re: weaken X
« on: October 18, 2007, 06:41:30 PM »
Is that from a real test?  That question blows.

9
Law School Applications / Re: Age range
« on: October 17, 2007, 09:18:19 PM »
The last time I took the LSAT I swear there was a guy sitting in the front row who looked to be in his early 60s.

10
Studying for the LSAT / Re: What's too old?
« on: October 17, 2007, 08:48:08 PM »
say what..

test hasn't be released yet.  and this is pretty much the most trafficked LSAT forum.  so I don't want to be the one a-hole who's up here talking about what was in the games section(s!!?!?) before there's been disclosure.

although probably this is all moot after the thorough Post-Mortems that were up here/are up all over.

I'm pretty sure it's kosher to talk about it in general terms.  The problems start when people post specific questions and answers or game setups.  LSAC's statement on the matter is actually pretty understanding, all things considered.  I still hate them in general, mind you.  I know there was somebody sitting in the office snickering when he banned mechanical pencils and digital watches from the test rooms.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12