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.

Topics - sg7007

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
Studying for the LSAT / PT#35 Sec.1(LR) Q.21
« on: May 16, 2008, 07:23:56 AM »
Please help me with this.

I put (B). If the patient doesn't get a good quality of the first two hours of sleep, then the doctor could advise him to sleep "better" for the first two hours instead of sleeping more, right? I thought this reasoing would explain the discrepancy.

I thought the correct answer, (E), was not good, cause even if it's true that worry about sleeping more can contribute to lack of sleep, the stimulus says the patient is getting 4 to 6 hours of sleep anyway. So, I guess the doctor should still advise him to sleep more or better.

Obviously, I guess I'm not seeing what LSAC thinks regarding this question. We're supposed to learn how to use and read language exactly the way LSAC wants us to use, but I'm thinking my own way on this question. Can somebody give me some explanation about the "standard" way of thinking on this question?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #35 Sec.1(LR) Q.8
« on: May 16, 2008, 05:52:16 AM »
Please help me with this weird question.

I put (B). I thought the fact that lobsters live longer in the open ocean than in the harbors, means that the water in the harbors is polluted. I thought it weakens the conclusion which says it's pointless to rerout the sewage offshore. If the water in the harbor is truly polluted, then it's not pointless that they dump the sewage in a different place.

Also, I don't see how (E) could be correct. Humans become ill after eating lobsters. Those lobsters could be from the harbor where sewage has been dumped, then it's good to rerout the sewage to further part of the sea. Is there something wrong in my reasoning?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #32. Sec.1(LR) Q.14
« on: May 11, 2008, 02:28:44 AM »
I can see why LSAC thinks (B) is the correct answer..But I think (B) is true only if it's assumed what the mayor said was correct. But, Can we just assume that the mayor's figures are not biased?

Studying for the LSAT / PT#20 Sec.4(LR) Q.19
« on: May 04, 2008, 10:49:07 AM »
I know this one has been answered before on this board, but I can't search for the thread. I guess it's one of the most difficult LR questions ever. Here it is.

19. Nearly all mail that is correctly addressed arrives at its destination within two business days of being sent. Correctly addressed mail takes longer than this only when it is damaged in transit. Overall, however, most mail arrives three business days or more after being sent.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?

(A) A large proportion of the mail that is correctly addressed is damaged in transit.
(B) No incorrectly addressed mail arrives within two business days of being sent.
(C) Most mail that arrives within two business days of being sent is correctly addressed.
(D) A large proportion of mail is incorrectly addressed.
(E) More mail arrives within two business days of being sent than arrives between two and three business days after being sent.

The correct answer is (D). I could barely understand the answer after drawing Venn diagrams, but can't quite understand it with neat conditional statements.

Also, does "a large proportion" mean 'some' or 'most'?

Studying for the LSAT / Prep test #20, Sec. 4(LR), Q.2
« on: May 04, 2008, 10:13:32 AM »
I know I'm bombarding this board with questions. I can't imagine how I can study LSAT without LSD. I always appreciate your help!

Here's a paraphrase of the question:

2. The law firm of Arnold & Porter is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. In fact, the firm has a better than 90 percent acquittal rate in such cases. Brian is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases, so Brian certainly cannot be a member of Arnold & Porter.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory.
(B) overlooks the possibility that a person can practice law without being a member of a law firm.
(C) concludes that someone is not a member of a group on the grounds that that person does not have a characteristic that the group as a whole has.
(D) takes a high rate of success among the members of a group to indicate that the successes are evenly spread among the members.
(E) states a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group about which the generalization is supposed to hold true.

The correct answer is (C).
Surely, my thoughts went to further cause I thought (C) was not the correct answer cause it's saying 'someone IS NOT a member of a group..." instead of saying "someone CANNOT be a member of a group..." The conclusion in the passage says Brian 'cannot' be a member of the law firm. I think the passage states on the 'possibility' of Brian's membership in the law firm in the future, but (C) says Brian "is not" a 'current' member of the law firm. Is there anything wrong in my thinking? (maybe, I still need to learn the technical usage of the 'be' verbs if I was wrong.) Still, I think (C) is the best answer, though.

Studying for the LSAT / Prep test #24, Sec 3(LR). Q.26
« on: May 04, 2008, 09:50:16 AM »
Here's a paraphrase of the question.

Journalist: My elected government representatives have their rights to vote to support the arts with tax dollars. While funded by the government, however, some artists have produced works of art that are morally or aesthetically offensive to many taxpayers. Nonetheless, my conclusion is that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly whose tax dollars are used to fund some particular work of art that they may find offensive.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the journalist's argument?

Actually, I got this question right, but still have a problem with the answer choice, (E), which I think could also be a correct answer. Here's the answer, (E):

(E) Since taxpayers are free to leave their country if they disapprove of their representatives' decisions, they have no right to complain about arts funding.

Yeah, it sounds crazy. But, cause we're not judging if this is a morally right principle or not, I guess we can just take the principle as it is. Then, I guess the principle stated in (E) could actually support the conclusion in the passage. The principle in (E) says taxpayers have no right to complain about arts funding, then I think, the journalist's conclusion that no taxpayers have been treated unjustly, is justified or supported by the principle. Is there something wrong in my reasoning?

Studying for the LSAT / Prep test #24, Sec 3. Q.24
« on: May 04, 2008, 09:33:55 AM »
Here's a paraphrase of the question.

24. Philosopher: A society is just when, and only when, first, each person has an equal right to basic liberties, and second, inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth are not tolerated unless these inequalities are to everyone's advantage and are attached to jobs open to everyone.

I had a hard time diagramming this passage. Basically, this is a multiple conditional statement, and I guess the part modified by 'unless' is embedded in one of the necessary conditions.

so, I diagrammed it like this:

                                   Equal Rights
Society Just <-->  ( ~Advantage                                      )   
                   (     or             --> ~Inequalities Tolerated  )
                   ( ~Jobs open to everyone                          )

 I guess my question is, can a conditional statement become one of the necessary conditions in an 'embedding' conditional statement?
or, you can just tell me how to diagram the passage.

Thanks in advance!

Studying for the LSAT / Prep test #24 Sec 3. Q.23
« on: May 04, 2008, 09:23:36 AM »
Here's a paraphrase.

23. Historians of American architecture who have studied early eighteenth-century houses with wooden floors have observed that the boards used on the floors of bigger houses were generally much narrower than those used on the floors of smaller houses. These historians have argued that, since the people for whom the bigger houses were built were generally richer than the people for whom the smaller houses were built, floors made out of narrow floorboards were probably once a status symbol, designed to proclaim the owner's wealth.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the historians' argument?

(B) In the early eighteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.

I can't see why (B) is the correct answer. (B) doesn't state that narrow floorboards were more expensive than wide ones. Narrow ones could've been more expensive, but we can't infer that from the answer choice, (B). I guess, at best, (B) doesn't do anything on the argument, yet the question is asking which answer choice does the most to strengthen the argument. How does (B) strenthen the argument?

Studying for the LSAT / Prep test #28, Sec.1(LR) Q.15
« on: May 01, 2008, 10:54:38 PM »
Here's a paraphrase of the question.

* The town of Springs frequently must declare a water emergency, making it temporarily unlawful to use water for such nonessential purpose as car washing. These emergencies could be avoided if Springs would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation. Actually, Springs discourages conservation because each household pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold, and a substantial per-liter rate only after the threshold is reached.

     I had a hard time identifying the conclusion of this passage. I thought the second sentence was the conclusion, but apparently, the third sentence is the conclusion. I guess the reason why the third sentence is the conclusion, is that it's got a supporting premise for it. But I guess the second sentence invokes a pretty strong response, too. In general, how exactly can I identify the conclusion? and what role does the second sentence play in this passage?

thanks in advance!

Studying for the LSAT / Prep test #26, Sec.3 Q.24
« on: April 25, 2008, 10:33:56 AM »
Here's a paraphrase of the question,

24. Over the last 25 years the average price paid for a new car has continuously increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.
(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.
(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.
(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and the population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.
(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales than they did 25 years ago.

The correct answer is (E), but I don't see why it 'has to' be the correct answer. Here's how I understand the passage: The average price for a  new car in relation to average individual income has gone up for the past 25 years; For example, the average price for a new car 25 years ago was 10% of the average individual income, today it's 20%; The conclusion states that today, individuals spend more in relation to the current average individual income to buy a new car.
 I don't see exactly how (E) weakens the conclusion. Can somebody show me this with some example?

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