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
41
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 08:07:20 PM »
It seems like it is incorrect because it is using a general term instead of a specific term.

I think that the logical conclusion, for the first statement, would be that all the tulips in the garden were tall tulips.

Just like the second, it should be that the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas.

I also think it has something to do with the misconception that the terms are interchangeable.

A plant is a broad term that contains many sub-categories, while tulips are a specific reference to a type of plant.

I could be wrong, and heck... I probably am wrong.

This is quite a difficult example.

thank you off !!

THANK YOU ALL!!!

42
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 08:06:13 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?

The argument is confused about how adjectives work.

Okay, let's say you have a SHORT giraffe. Now, the word short here, because it's placed before the word giraffe, indicates that the giraffe in question is short relative to other giraffes. However, is this short giraffe also a SHORT ANIMAL? Probably not. In fact, it's probably TALL relative to other animals. Make sense?


OMGGGGG I get it :)
MWAHHH


You just needed my hug!   ;)



 ::)

43
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 08:05:50 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?


Let me give another parallel statement:

The only people in the nursery were babies, but they were large babies.  Therefore, the only people in the nursery were large people.  

Can you see why this is flawed?  As others have noted, the terms "large" and "small" mean different things in different contexts, or when referring to different subsets within a larger set.

Here's another example:  The only fish in the pond were minnows.  However, they were large minnows. Therefore, the only fish in the pond were large fish.  

Just because minnows are large compared to other minnows doesn't mean they're large in comparison to fish generally.  

(Minnows, of course, are very small fish.  Even the big minnows.)

The same thing applies to tulips/plants, and primates/gorillas.  

ohhh thank you!! wow this is such a duhhh question; i can't believe i didn't get it  :D

44
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 08:02:39 PM »
ok i am confused even more now....  :'(


I was just joking!   :)


*hug*


Eveman was right about the giraffes.


it's aight ... Pitt is forgiven despite dumping Jen

45
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 08:02:05 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?

The argument is confused about how adjectives work.

Okay, let's say you have a SHORT giraffe. Now, the word short here, because it's placed before the word giraffe, indicates that the giraffe in question is short relative to other giraffes. However, is this short giraffe also a SHORT ANIMAL? Probably not. In fact, it's probably TALL relative to other animals. Make sense?


OMGGGGG I get it :)
MWAHHH

46
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 05:11:36 PM »
thank you for your help though!

47
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 05:06:51 PM »
ok i am confused even more now....  :'(

48
Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 03:52:37 PM »
it's parallel reasoning question

49
Studying for the LSAT / and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 03:52:09 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?

50
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Gotta release the anger somewhere
« on: July 13, 2007, 08:42:05 AM »
in the "signed up for a course, now what?" thread, in response to walkaway's queation on how to resolve problems with talkative and generally annoying classmates, i initially posted a picture of an uzi machine gun. i took it down out of a post-virginia tech pang of guilt, but perhaps i should have left it up for you, tinkle45.

i like the genital herpes idea though. nice touch.


 :D

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