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.

Topics - dubsy

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27
Studying for the LSAT / practical joker
« on: October 28, 2007, 03:22:04 PM »
Franklin: the only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note. Ordinarily I would suspect Miller, who has always been jealous of me, but the handwriting is not hers. So the joker is apparently someone else.

Which one of the following provides the strongest grounds for criticizing Franklin's reasoning?

TCR: It fails to consider the possibility that there was more than one practical joker.

I understand this, and I did get it right, but can someone show me exactly why the following answer is wrong ? (I was deliberating between these two)

B: it fails to indicate the degree to which handwriting samples should look alike in order to be considered of the same source.  <-- this one confused me, because I thought hey, maybe Franklin should clarify how much handwriting has to look alike to prove it is/isn't someone else's, because how do we know Miller didn't FAKE the handwriting? 

Clarification please?

Studying for the LSAT / 2N question
« on: October 28, 2007, 03:17:05 PM »
Investment banker: Democracies require free-market capitalist economies, because a more controlled economy is incompatible with complete democracy. But history shows that repressive measures against certain capitalistic developments are required during the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democracy. Thus, people who bemoan the seemingly anticapitalistic measures certain governments are currently taking are being hasty.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the i-banker's argument?

TCR: The nations whose anticapitalistic measures the people in question bemoan had totalitarian regimes in the recent past. 

So I got this one right, but I'm not exactly clear on TCR.  Isn't the investment banker's main flaw that he assumes that the "bemoaning people" are in a country that is even IN that transition from a totalitarian regime to a democracy?  so his assumption is grander than them just having had a totalitarian regime - he's assuming that they're moving from a totalitarian to a DEMOCRATIC regime too, isn't he? could that be another possible answer - that he assumes the "nations whose anticapitalistic measures the people in question bemoan will necessarily be moving towards a democracy in the future"?

Studying for the LSAT / Strengthen question
« on: October 28, 2007, 12:48:00 PM »
I got this one right through POE but I don't really get why the answer is right. Someone please explain?

Everyone likes repertory theater. Actors like it because playing different roles each night decrease their boredom. Stagehands like it because changing sets every night means more overtime and higher pay. Theater managers like it because, if plays that reflect audience demand are chosen for production, most performances generate large revenues. It is evident, therefore, that more theaters should change to repertory.

The argument above would be strengthened if which one of the following were true?

TCR: In a repertory theater, plays can be rescheduled to meet audience demand.


When is "only" a necessary condition? when it's preceded by "the"?  or are both necessary conditions?

here's an example of a problem i had trouble with:
People who have doctorates in the liberal arts are interested in improving their intellects. Copmanies, however, rarely hire people who are not concerned with the financial gain that can be obtained by hard work in teh business world. As a result, companies rarely hire people who have doctorates in the liberal arts.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

I thought it was: The only people not interested in making money in teh business world are people who are interested in improving their intellects.

Correct answer: Only people not concerned with making money in the business world are interested in improving their intellects.

Clearly, the "the" makes a big difference! Could someone please diagram and explain this problem, and also a general principle in terms of approaching "Only" vs. "The Only" in diagramming?  Thanks so much!!

Studying for the LSAT / Type 2 Question
« on: October 27, 2007, 11:10:41 AM »
Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast majority of which are started by lightning, are not only a natural phenomenon to which all forest ecosystems are well adapted, but are required for many forests to flourish. Forest fires facilitate the opening and spreading of seed pods, prevent an overabundance of insects, and promote the diversity of forests by preventing certain varieties of aggressive weeds from dominating other species. In view of this, systematic attempts by human beings to prevent or control forest fires are ill-advised and shortsighted: forest fires should be left alone and allowed to burn themselves out naturally.

The conclusion drawn above folows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

I chose A) Human intervention in natural processes tends to reduce the biological diversity of ecosystems
Correct answer: Protection of forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires.

I was stuck between these two, and can't really figure out why B enables a coherent argument more so than A. Can someone please explain this to me?

Studying for the LSAT / Assumption Question
« on: October 27, 2007, 09:33:08 AM »
It is obvious that one ought to have a will stating how one wishes one's estate to be distributed.  This can easily be seen from the fact that, according to current laws, in the absence of a legal will distant relatives whom one has never even met have a greater legal right to one's estate than one's beloved friends do.

Which one of the folloiwng is an assumption on which the argument depends?

I chose A) No one wants his or her estate to go to someone he or she has never met.  <--- If we negate this, wouldn't it make the argument fall apart???

Correct answer: People are generally not indifferent about how their estates are distributed. <--- I now see how if we negate this, it could also make the argument fall apart but how is this better than Choice A?

Studying for the LSAT / Most strongly supported question
« on: October 27, 2007, 09:28:37 AM »
Cezanne's art inspired the next generation of artists, twentieth century modernist creators of abstract art. While most experts rank Cezanne as an erly modernist, a small few reject this idea.  rancoise Cachin, fo example, bluntly states that such an ascription is "overplayed,"and says that Cezannes work is "too often observed from a modern point of view." 

Which one of the following statements i most strongly supported by the information above?

I couldn't choose between these two...

B) Cezanne was an early creator of abstract art
C) Cezanne's work helped to develop modernism

The correct answer is C.  How is C more supported than B?  Isn't C the issue at stake in the stimulus?

Studying for the LSAT / really confused, can someone please help me?
« on: October 24, 2007, 07:59:59 PM »
Studies of the reliability of eyewitness identifications show little correlation between the accuracy of a witness's account and the confidence the witness has in the account. Certain factors can increase or undermine a witness's confidence without altering the accuracy of the identification. Therefore, police officers are advised to disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects.

Which one of the following is a principle underlying the advice given to police officers?

TCR: The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other people claim to have seen.

Ok, I got lucky and got this by POE, but i don't get it.  Doesn't the stimulus say that there is NO correlation between confidence and accuracy?? so doesn't TCR contradict that exactly?!!!  i'm so confused!

Studying for the LSAT / for anyone who has mastered LGB
« on: October 24, 2007, 01:03:48 PM »
what exactly is the difference between a game that is labeled "advanced linear" and a "group/linear combo" game??  arent you placing groups of things into a sequential order in both cases?

Studying for the LSAT / help, please!!
« on: October 24, 2007, 10:41:32 AM »
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument:

TCR: Presumes, without justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes.

I thought it was... E) Presumes, without justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.

I see how TCR points out that time might not necessarily dictate teh amount of emissions, but doesn't choice E also point out that time might not necessarily dictate the # of collisions?

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27