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 - cs_rudy
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 14
« on: November 27, 2007, 11:35:00 AM »
Sorry for being a pest, but if the LSAT is all about precise wording, how can unforseen technologies equate to expected technologies, as Luis says?
Is assuming that unforseen consequences does not equal expected consequences assuming too much? And if so, why?
« on: November 27, 2007, 01:27:14 AM »
I think I just figured out where I was mistaken. Can someone describe what the rule "Exactly two of the students review exactly the same play or plays as each other" means?
« on: November 27, 2007, 01:20:57 AM »
I have another question about this game.
Question 20. Which one of the following must be true?
(A) Jiang reviews more of the plays than Lopez does.
(B) Megregian reviews more of the plays than Jiang does.
(C) Megregian reviews more of the plays than O'Neill does.
(D) O'Neill reviews more of the plays than Jiang does.
(E) O'Neill reviews more of the plays than Kramer does.
They list TCR as B, which certainly must be true. However, I chose E, which I think also must be true. As much as I try, I cannot create a hypothetical where E is false.
« on: November 26, 2007, 10:18:55 PM »
But Luis says: "any research that is expected to yield practical applications". And answer choice A says "unforseen practical applications."
Can you expect something that is unforseen? Anyone else have any ideas on this one?
« on: November 26, 2007, 09:55:37 PM »
What I don't understand is why they don't disagree about
A: The government should help fund pure theoretical research because such research might have unforeseen practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine.
It seems to me that the first speaker would agree with this, because it fits her criteria, but the second speaker would disagree, because he says "expected to yield practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine ought to be funded."
« on: November 26, 2007, 09:13:53 PM »
Cynthia: Corporations amply fund research that generates marketable new technologies. But the fundamental goal of science is to achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the workings of the universe. The government should help fund those basic scientific research projects that seek to further our theoretical knowledge of nature.
Luis: The basic goal of government support of scientific research is to generate technological advances that will benefit society as a whole. So only research that is expected to yield practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine ought to be funded.
Cynthia's and Luis's statements provide the most support for the contention that they would disagree with each other about the truth of which one of the following statements?
A. The government should help fund pure theoretical research because such research might have unforeseen practical applications in fields such as agriculture and medicine.
B. A proposed study of the effects of chemical fertilizers on crops, for the purpose of developing more-resistant and higher-yielding breeds should not receive government funding.
C. Although some research projects in theoretical science yield practical benefits, most do not, and so no research projects in theoretical science should be funded by the government.
D. Research for the sole purpose of developing new technologies ought to be financed exclusively by corporations.
E. Knowledge gained through basic scientific research need not be expected to lead to new and useful technologies in order for the research to merit government funding.
« on: November 25, 2007, 02:36:19 AM »
Foster: Many species of extremely large North American mammals became extinct during the last ice age, which was also the time of the first human migration to North America. These species could not survive the dramatic changes wrought by this human migration.
Fisch: Those extinctions were caused by the dramatic shift to a harsher climate. The climate changed so rapidly that the species could not adapt.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens Fisch's argument?
A. Similar species living in parts of the world where there were dramatic changes in climate did not become extinct.
B. Most of the mammals that survived in North America migrated from Asia at the same time as the humans migrated.
C. Human migration to other previously isolated areas has resulted in mammal species becoming extinct.
D. Archaeological evidence reveals that the human migrants had a number of different kinds of large weapons.
E. The large size of the mammals made it difficult for them to migrate the great distances to milder environments.
I will post which answer is correct later. Thanks for your help.
« on: November 22, 2007, 01:37:48 PM »
The question asks about:
The justification Helen offers for her judgment
Here is the justification: Saying something that is false can never be other than morally wrong, and there had been no such accident - Mark had simply forgotten all about the party.
I don't see any cause and effect in the justification. Do you?
« on: November 22, 2007, 01:13:04 PM »
also, i totally don't approve of the term TTT. whoever first used it in this thread, shame on you. you know who you are.
I don't approve of it either. I also don't approve of making fun of people's LSAT scores. Worst, however, is some kid with an LSAT score below a school's median calling it "Cooley."
Wow, you're almost as good at math as you are at contradicting yourself.
"You'd be lucky if your LSAT score got you in. HTH."
"I also don't approve of making fun of people's LSAT scores."
« on: November 22, 2007, 06:44:40 AM »
I disagree. I don't think the "action" is referring to converging living standards. How is that an action? I believe the action is nonexistent. In other words, answer choice B sounds appealing but there is no action, nor are there predicted consequences.
If you look at the correct choice, which is referring to the absence of converging living standards as an example, it refers to them as a "state of affairs".
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 14