Law School Discussion

Ah, yes.  That makes more sense, thanks for the explanation.

Didn't you guys see that I gave you the answer with my whole "third letter..." thing.  You guys both seemed sorta unsure.

The widespread staff reductions in a certain region's economy are said to be causing people who still have their jobs to cut back on new purchases as though they, too, had become economically distressed.  Clearly, however, actual spending by such people is undiminished, bc there has been no unusual increase in the amount of money held by those people in savings accounts.

#18. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. If people in the region who continue to be employed have debts, they are not now paying them off at an accelerated rate.

B.  People in the region who continue to be employed and who have relatives who have lost their jobs commonly assist those relative financially.

C.  If people i nthe region who have lost jobs get new jobs, the new jobs generally pay less well than the ones they lost.

D. People in the region who continue to be employed are pessimistic about their prospects for increasing incomes.

E.  There exist not statistics about sales of goods in the region as a whole.

As I was typing this I see the answer.  The anwer is the third letter in the word "read."

Discuss...

Quote from: robbief on September 23, 2004, 03:38:29 PM

The person in the stimulus DOES break a promise ... he doesn't lie to the teacher when he promised to.  So the teacher wants him to prioritize his lies.  Choice D is clearly it.

HELLO.

No one has done anything in the stimulus in terms of promise breaking or not breaking.  You are going far beyond the realm of the question.

Incorrect.  This whole passage IS ABOUT PROMISE BREAKING.  Let's do this piece by piece.

The teacher says you shouldn't break promises, right?  Yes.  But she then somewhat undermines herself when even though you promised that girl you would lie to me, but we have an implicit promise to tell the truth, therefore you should tell the truth.

So, the guy has made two contradictory promises:
Implicit: To always tell the truth
Explicit:  To lie to the teacher.

Teacher says he should should implicit over the explicit.  Therefore, yes, some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit.

I know it may not be so comforting, but I am 100% sure that this one is D and am surprised by how long this has carried on.

I think part of the reason you missed this is that yuo're looking into the wrong part of the argument. 
The arg. is such:
Cave paintings DON'T portray all animals they eat bc these caves on this island neglect to include fish.

B says they COULD include fish, which would weaken his argument, but we'll never know bc part of the caves don't exist.   That weakens it.

So, I think you're saying that C strenghtens it? If that's the case, then it's def. wrong.

You seem to be assuming that argument is sound, when our mission is to show ways in which it may not be.

If not, I don't understand what you're saying.

By the way, "many" could logically include "all" I think.