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 ... 19 20 21 22 23  25 26 27 28
« on: October 27, 2007, 01:10:41 PM »
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?
« on: October 27, 2007, 11:33:08 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?
« on: October 27, 2007, 11:28:37 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?
« on: October 24, 2007, 09:59:59 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!
« on: October 24, 2007, 03:03:48 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?
« on: October 24, 2007, 12:41:32 PM »
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?
« on: October 24, 2007, 09:35:51 AM »
Bernard: For which language, and thus which frequency distribution of letters and letter sequences, was the standard typewriter keyboard designed?
Cara: To ask this question, you must be making a mistaken assumption: that typing speed was to be maximized. The real danger with early typewriters was that operators would hit successive keys too quickly, thereby crashing typebars into each other, bending connecting wires, and so on. So the idea was to slow the operator down by making the most common letter sequences awkward to type.
Bernard: Surely that is not right! These technological limtations have long vanished, yet the keyboard is still as it was then.
Which one of the following, if true, could be used by Cora to counter Bernard's rejection of her explanation?
TCR (got lucky, and chose it): Typewriters and word-processing equipment are typically sold to people who have learned to use the standard keyboard and who, therefore, demand it in equipment they buy.
The AC I was debating with: The standard keyboard allows skilled operators to achieve considerable typing speeds, though it makes acquiring such skills relatively difficult.
Can someone point out why the second AC is definitely wrong, and how the first one is stronger? I feel like they're both pretty convincing...
« on: October 23, 2007, 07:22:48 PM »
Is the flaw in this that the arguer fails to consider the possibility of things being equal, rather than necessarily having to be less?
At teh company picnic, all of the employees who participated in more than four of the scheduled events, and only those employees, were eligible for the raffle held at the end of the day. Since only a small proportion of the employees were eligible for the raffle, most of the employees must have participated in fewer than four of the scheduled events.
Please confirm/point out something else!
« on: October 22, 2007, 05:24:33 PM »
HIstorian: the spread of literacy informs more people of injustices and, in the right circumstances, leads to increased capacity to distinguish true reformers from mere opportunists. HOwever, widespread literacy invariably emerges before any comprehensive system of general education; thus, in the interim, the populace is vulnerable to clever demagogues calling for change. Consequently, some relatively benign regimes may ironically be toppled by their own "enlightened" move to increase literacy.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?
TCR: A demogogue can never enlist the public support necessary to topple an existing regime unless a comprehensive system of general education is in place.
my answer: Without literacy there can be no general awareness of teh injustice in a society.
Can someone help me diagram this or at least walk me through the logical reasoning in this?
« on: October 22, 2007, 09:47:57 AM »
If you could have done anything better to prepare for the LSAT, it would have been ________________.
(something more specific than "studying more"!)
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23  25 26 27 28