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 - giveme170

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Studying for the LSAT / LR Q
« on: September 25, 2007, 07:41:11 PM »
This might be an easy one for most of you gurus but...

 Most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain. While dieting can help reduce the amount of weight gained while taking such antidepressants, some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable.

The information above most strongly supports which one of the following?

B) People who are trying to lose weight should not ask their doctors for an antidepressant drug.

C) At least some patients taking antidepressant drugs gain weight as a result of taking them.

 Other than simple explanations such as 'this is irrelevant', can someone please break this down and explain why each answer is wrong and right?

Studying for the LSAT / Flaw LR
« on: September 24, 2007, 09:42:13 PM »
 The consumer price index is a measure that detects monthly changes in the retail prices of goods and services. The payment of some government retirement benefits is based on the consumer price index so that those benefits reflect the change in the cost of living as the index changes. However, the consumer price index does not consider technological innovations that may drastically reduce the costs of producing some goods. Therefore, the value of government benefits is sometimes greater than is warranted by the true change in costs.

Can anyone see any drastic flaw with this argument? I can't seem to understand what is all that wrong with it.  :'(

Studying for the LSAT / LR question~~
« on: September 24, 2007, 09:37:44 PM »
 A 1991 calculation was made to determine what, if any, additional health-care costs beyond the ordinary are borne by society at large for people who live a sedentary life. The figure reached was a lifetime average of $1,650. Thus people's voluntary choice not to exercise places a significant burden on society.

Which one of following, if true and not taken into account by calculation, most seriously weakens the arguemnt?

A) Many people whose employment requires physical exertion do not choose to engage in regular physical exercise when they are not at work.

C) Physical conditions that eventually require medical or nursing-home care often first predispose a person to adopt a sedentary lifestyle.

Can anyone explain this problem? I don't understand why the correct answer is correct and why the wrong ones are wrong.  :(

Studying for the LSAT / Frustration regarding the test
« on: September 22, 2007, 06:40:18 PM »
 I am sure many people, if not all of us, have experienced frustration because of lack of progress while studying for the LSAT. Especially for a younger college student like me, studying for this test has been a lot more difficult than studying for other standardized tests such as SAT (which is mostly memorizing things) I do understand developing thinking skills take longer time than memorizing vocabs or math formulas, but how long can one reasonably expect to spend on mastering this test? 6month at the most? a year? What if someone has not studied the logics her entire life and has to start with LSAT? I am asking this because it seems so far away. I am not really frustrated at this point (especially because I made some improvement on both LR and LG sections recently) but I just want to hear what people think.  :)

Studying for the LSAT / Logic games...
« on: September 13, 2007, 04:23:36 AM »
After studying for the LR for few months, I feel I am improving gradually. I do not have any problem studying by myself for LR because no matter how hard a question may be, I can always use the basic concepts I learned through the Bible and at least take a shot at it(I don't always get correct answer on everything, of course). Now I am trying to do the same for LG, and it doesnt seem to work very well. Even though I read the LGB twice and did not have much problem solving most of the questions on the book, when I do the games on preptests, I cannot solve many of the games. Most of the time I fail to make the major inference even though I know how to apply all the rules and diagram and stuff. Can someone suggest a way to study for the LG sections? Is it possible to leran LG by myself like how I learned LR or do I need a tutor for this?  :(

Studying for the LSAT / Point at issue Q...
« on: September 11, 2007, 09:49:05 PM »
 Tina: For centuries oceans and human eccentricity have been linked in the literary and artistic imagination. Such linkage is probably due to the European Renaissance practice of using ships as asylums for the socially undersirable.

 Sergio: No, Oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable- qualities that people have invariably associated with eccentricity.

Tina's and Sergio's statements lend the most support to the claim that they disagree about which one of the following statements?

D)People have never attributed the same qualities to oceans and eccentrics.
E)The linkage between oceans and eccentricity predates the European Renaissance.

How do you determine what exactly two people disagree on? I used the Bible's method, but this sometimes does not work. Could anybody provide some general advice for Point at Issue Questions? Thank you~  :)

Studying for the LSAT / How much is enough?
« on: September 08, 2007, 09:12:34 PM »
I have used the book called "10 Actual, official LSAT" to apply the concepts learned through the LR bible. Until now, i only did questions by types, one by one, untimed. After going through the entire book by doing question types, I took an untimed test, but it looks like I did not improve much on the LR section. Is this because I am still not used to the concepts yet? Should I just redo all the questions from the same book again to get more used to the types? I am not sure what to do because I am kind of reluctant to start doing the next book(the next 10 tests) because I did not see much improvement. What is the best way to improve from here and what should I do next?  :P

Studying for the LSAT / A dumb question
« on: September 07, 2007, 07:04:54 PM »
this may sound very simple or even stupid to many of you, but what is the difference between knowing something has happened and the fact that it actually happened? How can each have a different effect on one's argument when used in the LSAT? Doesn't the author just assume what they know is what actually happened?  ???

 In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortuantely, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.

I was doing some Parellel Questions and came acroess this flawed conditional reasoning. It made me feel confused for a while because usually, the 'flgiht' (process of getting to the place) comes after the 'meeting' in everday life. Even though I did get this question correct, it still bothers me because I continue to think that necessary condition comes before SC. (I know this is not necessarily true from what I have read from the bible) Could someone suggest any efficient method I could use in order to understand CR that has strange sounding order. (As in, If the world ends, all the ice cream MUST be melt down).  :P

Studying for the LSAT / Must be true...
« on: September 05, 2007, 05:55:55 PM »
 Chlorofluorocarbons are the best possible solvents to have in car engines for cleaning the electronic sensors in modern automobile ignition systems. These solvents have contributed significantly to automakers' ability to meet legally mandated emission standards. Now automakers will have to phase out the use of chloroflurocarbons at the same time the emission standards are becoming more stringent.

In under the circumstances described above cars continue to meet emission standards, which one of the following is the most strongly supported inference?

D) The solvents developed to replace chloroflurocarbons in car engines will be only marginally less effective than the chloroflurocarbons themselves.

E) Something other than the cleansers for electronic ignition sensors will make a relatively greater contribution to meeting emission standards than at present.

Why is E correct? There is no guarantee that 'something other than the cleansers will play a larger role' if we assume that another type (other than chloroflurocarbons) of cleanser would replace this. I though both D and E are not enough to be proven by what was said in the stimulus. Help!  :(

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4