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 - UnbiasedObserver
Pages: 1 ... 200 201 202 203 204 
« on: December 03, 2006, 08:14:02 AM »
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.
« on: December 03, 2006, 08:09:23 AM »
Assumption (2S) : If Jane and Jack are both in this guy's office and the fingerprints an the footprints yada yada yada, Iím sure you remember this one
Answer: C, Nobody else was in the office
The stim noted that if Samantha had been the killer, she would have not left fingerprints or footprints. There were no footprints, and the fingerprint was not Matt's. Since there was a fingerprint, and they concluded the killer was Samantha, I selected that 'The fingerprint belongs to somebody else'... (because if it was Samatha's, she wculdn't be the killer, because if she was the killer she wouldn't have left any)
This is the answer, since there were no footprints, so you only need to close the possibility that the fingerprints are hers.
« on: December 03, 2006, 08:08:07 AM »
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?
Yes, I chose the walnut and pies as well.
« on: December 03, 2006, 07:56:35 AM »
I think the LHB question that asks what all three scientists agree on is that all three would agree that the strikes eventually declinded as time passed, or something to that effect. Anybody else remember this?
« on: December 03, 2006, 07:55:23 AM »
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....
The author does hint at it. By stating that the computers could not handle the problems with the current technology, it can be inferred that they possibly could handle the problems if a breakthrough occurred.
« on: December 02, 2006, 05:14:16 PM »
The first section was experimental, for I had this sequence:
I hope everyone did well!
Pages: 1 ... 200 201 202 203 204