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.


Messages - Tinkle45

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
31
Studying for the LSAT / Re: silly question but oh well :)
« on: July 24, 2007, 10:37:10 PM »
thank you for your replies guys  :)

32
Studying for the LSAT / silly question but oh well :)
« on: July 24, 2007, 08:35:29 PM »
my instructor tells us that whenever we read an argument, we should ask whether or not the argument is good.
Anyways, so i am doing Role/Function questions (which are fabulous!!!!). So my question is: is this argument good or bad?

A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose consciousness; from this some people infer that consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot survive bodily death. But a radio that becomes damaged may suddenly cease to broadcast the program it had been receiving, and we do not conclude from this that the program itself has ceased to exist. Similarly, more substantial evidence would be needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death.

ok. i think it is a good argument because the conclusion seems safe even though evidence are not too relevant.
I need your opinion.
Thank you!!

33
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Anyone else experiencing insomnia yet?
« on: July 22, 2007, 04:45:34 PM »
no insomnia but weird LSAT dreams where i have to pick answer choices. I wake up and think about problems that were given to me in my dreams. I am so scared that i am going nuts

34
Studying for the LSAT / Re: last question for today
« on: July 22, 2007, 04:38:23 PM »
Jeffort you are a gem!!!!!!!!

35
Studying for the LSAT / Re: last question for today
« on: July 21, 2007, 09:29:39 AM »
Premise: Some Xs are Ys
Premise: All Ys are Z's
Premise:
Conclusion: SOme Ws and Z's

this is how i drew

W--> XsomeY-->Z

is this correct
The missing premise is All W's are X?
because the right answer is all Xs are Ws?

You have it reversed in part of your text. Adding in X --> W would lock it up.

     --> W
  /
X Y --> Z

Valid conclusion:  W   Z

thankkkk you Jeffort! makes so much sense.

but please tell me i am reasoning right in this one:

No A's are B's . Some Bs are C.

A<--|--> Bsome C
does not it give me: Asomenot C?
I don't know... this problem came to me in my dream  :-\...shows how obsessed i am with LSAT

36
Studying for the LSAT / Re: question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 06:29:31 PM »
Beating a dead horse, but I really liked this hypo:

All men are people.  All women are people.

Does this mean some men are women?

that's a good one actually! Merci!

37
Studying for the LSAT / last question for today
« on: July 20, 2007, 06:28:39 PM »
Premise: Some Xs are Ys
Premise: All Ys are Z's
Premise:
Conclusion: SOme Ws and Z's

this is how i drew

W--> XsomeY-->Z

is this correct
The missing premise is All W's are X?
because the right answer is all Xs are Ws?

38
Studying for the LSAT / Re: question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 06:26:05 PM »
One thing that helped me think about this was to add a little to the diagram when first working on it.

X--->Z

so if you have a bunch of Xs floating around
x    X
  X     x  x

They're actually all Zs  
xz    Xz
  Xz     xz  xz

But there's no reason that you can't have just Zs
xz    Xz    z   z  z
  Xz     xz  xz

So
X--->Z

xz    Xz    z   z  z
  Xz     xz  xz

and

Y--->Z

So you could always have:
xz   YZ Xz    z   z  z
  Xz     XYZ  xz
YZ   YZ

Or something else, but you can't know anything but what they give you.

 This does get easier without all my Zs Ys and Xs


Lolll thanks for the help  :)

39
Studying for the LSAT / Re: question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 05:06:12 PM »
All Xs are Zs All Ys are Zs

So
X-->Z<--Y
we can still conclude that some Xs are Ys..or am i nuts?  :-\
my instructor said you can't make any inferences.

You can't make any valid transitive inference from that set.

X --> Z

Y --> Z

Two different sufficient conditions that both lead to the same necessary condition does not guarantee any cross over amongst the two different sufficient conditions.



Oh! thank you so much!

40
Studying for the LSAT / question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 05:00:31 PM »
All Xs are Zs All Ys are Zs

So
X-->Z<--Y
we can still conclude that some Xs are Ys..or am i nuts?  :-\
my instructor said you can't make any inferences.

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