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.

Messages - robbief

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR - October 2000
« on: September 28, 2004, 07:11:22 PM »
Yes, it's what I'm referring to.  I figured it had to be D, but looking over it afterwards, I couldn't concretely think of why C was relevant.


Studying for the LSAT / LR - October 2000
« on: September 28, 2004, 06:47:36 PM »
A pretty average test overall.  One question, that while I got it right, I had difficulty choosing... Try it out.

Detective: B/c the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corp. as either an accountant or an actuary.  But an accountant wouldn;t have made the mistakes in the ledger entries that led to the discovery of the the embezzlment.  Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.

Each of the following weakens the argument EXCEPT:

A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ were more closely watched than were the activities of the accountants.

B.  There is evidence that the embezzlement could have come from outside XYZ Corp.

C.  XYZ employs 8 accountants, whereas it has only 2 actuaries.

D.  An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement.

E.  Certain security measures made it more difficult for actuaries to have internal financial records than accountants.

While the answer is obvious, it seems that one of the other choices doesn't weaken it so well....

Yeah... Put it this way: For me, if D wasn't there, and my choices were A.B,D, and E.  I would feel very good about choosing A, not stopping for a minute to realize the logic is wrong.  But the fact that D seemed right too, tipped me off that something was up.

I held on to A until I got to D.  Then I compared the two and only then was it that I realized A's flaw.

I was definitely using the terms obj/subj. loosely.  I just meant that the phrase "as one gets older..." can only apply to that one, whereas the "older the ice core..." talks about all ice cores.  In order to turn "as one gets older..." into a statement that applies to ALL people as D does, it would have to read "Older people are smarter than all younger people" or something.  So yeah, don't take my obj/subj. phrases too literally, I guess. 

And I'm not fired up or anything, I'm just trying to explain my reasoning.  If I came off as being "fired up"... I wasn't clear.

And yes, cas... did have a better explanation, but we're saying the same thing.

No...she's only smarter than herself when she was that age.  Maybe that baby's a super genius like the kid in Family Guy or something.

Do you see how it's subjective, and not objective? 

I think you're wrong.  The only reason A is wrong bc it is applied subjectively.  "As ONE gets older ONE (he/she) gets smarter."  It's true.  The only thing that could be said from that is that I'm wiser today than I was yesterday.  That means I could start really smart as a baby, and by the time I'm old, I'll be REALLY REALLY smart, or any amount smarter than I was.  But can't two people start at different levels and progress differently?  Of course.  You cannot use this reasoning to apply to two people, only one. 

D on the other hand is perfectly objective, and thus the argument is sound, as in the stimulus.

E says If bigger language (sufficient condition)----> harder to learn (necassary condition).  Therefore, it says, since English is harder, it's a bigger language. 

It switches the necassary condition (hard) for the sufficient (bigger).  (Holy...take that sentence out of context and some weird thoughts could come from it....)  Anyways, isn't it true that English could be harder to learn for other reasons?  Bigger language isn't the ONLY thing that makes a language hard.  What if there are no teachers to teach it or something?  That would make it hard. 

So the fact that that English is harder, doesn't necasarily mean that it's bigger.  If it was bigger, than yes, you can conclude it's harder, but that's all.  Not vice versa.

Sorry if that's unclear.

Matt, I think there's a mistake in your stimulus bc you compare Panama City to Panama City... but it's clear'ish what you mean.

The answer here is D.

The tempting choice is A, but the whole "smart" thing has to do with oneself, and therefore can only be applied to oneself.  If A said "Older people are smarter than younger ones..." it would be correct.

B doesn't talk about how long they are beaten.
C doesn't really make any sense bc it's talking people in general.
E is a mistaken reversal.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR - Dec. 97
« on: September 27, 2004, 01:59:25 PM »
I know...that's what I do, too.  So I tried to be discreet so that people wouldn't see the answer when scrolling, but would know it's there if they look.  Anyways....thanks for the answer.  It's also the only one that makes any sense.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21