# Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 9 10
51
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: last question for today
« on: July 21, 2007, 11:29:39 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

52
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 08:29:31 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!

53
##### Studying for the LSAT / last question for today
« on: July 20, 2007, 08:28:39 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?

54
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 08:26:05 PM »

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

55
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 07:06:12 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!

56
##### Studying for the LSAT / question?
« on: July 20, 2007, 07:00:31 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.

57
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 10:07:20 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!!!

58
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 10:06:13 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?

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!

59
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 10:05:50 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

60
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 10:02:39 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

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