Law School Discussion

I think the key here is that it's an illogical conclusion that is correct.

The stem said that if S did it neither her footprints nor her fingerprints were left at the scene.

Only fingerprints were found. What's the missing part here to make S the guilty party? That they were not her fingerprints. (They could be the victims for all we know).

ALL you had to know was that for S to have done it, neither her footprints nor fingerprints were at the scene.

That's why TCR is that the fingerprints were not hers.

This will, I'm sure, be debated until 12/22 when we find out for sure.

Regarding the parallel reasoning question 22.:
 PR #1 Fatty foods less healthy than unfatty foods. These brownies are non-fat and these cookies are fatty.
Answer: Cooked and raw vegetables, and making a faulty parallel based on the carrots being cooked. B - I think.

I choose a different answer. something about walnuts and pies. I remember i decided against the vegtables because the cooking procees was not an inherient property in the vegtables. whereas the walnut thing had the same inherient parallel qualities. can someone tell me why the walnut answer was right or wrong?

Uhm..I dont know about that. The author stressed throughout the entire passage that come what may, do whateva you think, it is going to be impossible for computers to solve legal cases correctly. One of the questions even asked that, in which the answer was that they are good for research purposes but thats it. The author NEVER hinted that in the future, computers MAY work...nope....