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 - mentor

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
  My guess would be that ... Boalt probably hadecent looking girls

Have you ever been to Berkeley?  They're even a rung below Stanford.

Oh, really?  GF -> GS (Good Farming IS sufficient for maintaining Good Soil) according to the stimulus.  Answer choice C confuses sufficient and necessary.  Besides, even if it were correct, it would be a restatement of one of the premises, NOT an inference.

So, if you interpret "prerequisite" to mean "necessary", you are dead wrong on this explanation.  If you interpret it as "sufficient" then it is not an inference.

In an absence of a clear definition of the word "prerequisite" I, personally, in the interest of time, would be inclined to discard any answer choice that contains it.  But this is my personal hack, which may or may not work in every case.

GF in that inference means 'good food.'  If you 'cannot maintain good soil without good farming' as per the stimulus good farming is necessary for good soil.

Prerequisite means 'necessary.'

The whole chain:

GMeal --> GFood --> GSoil --> GFarm --> Natural, Cultural conditions

or, a shorter explanation:

EarlCat is right and you are wrong.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tutoring for the upcoming LSAT
« on: April 02, 2008, 02:31:52 PM »
I saw your name on it when I Googled it; however, having not seen you linked to schizophrenia research before that, I made the faulty assumption that it was another Jeff Moenter.

That actually does sound interesting - it seems parallel, at least in part, to the massive auditory gating problems that my grandparents say they encounter due to their hearing aids, especially the inability to pick up specific conversations in noise-crowded spaces.  Perhaps I'll read it.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tutoring for the upcoming LSAT
« on: April 02, 2008, 02:55:51 AM » the schizophrenia article was you?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: diagnostic score -- what is my potential?
« on: April 02, 2008, 02:53:57 AM »
You can improve 14 points.

First off, this is a parallel flaw question.  That tells us to look for two things:

-a specific logical fallacy in the stimulus;
-the same structure and fallacy in one of the five answer choices.

Directing our attention to the stimulus:

The museum's night security guard maintains that the
thieves who stole the portrait did not enter the museum at
any point at or above ground level. Therefore, the thieves
must have gained access to the museum from below
ground level.

If we took the entire argument as if it came from the museum night guard, it seems to make sense; he says the thieves didn't enter at or above ground level, so they must have entered below ground level.  The problem is that it is not the museum guard making the argument in question.  An unnamed author poses the argument based on what the security guard says:

P: Night guard says thieves didn't enter at ground level or above
C: They therefore entered below ground level.

See the problem?  We conclude that a specific event happens based on what somebody claims without establishing the veracity of the claim.  We don't know if the security guard is correct in what he maintains - maybe he was sleeping or off taking a dump during the break-in.

Now look at answer choice B:

B. The store's competitors claim that the store in selling
off the shirts at those prices, neither made any profit nor
broke even. Consequently, the store's customers must
have been able to buy shirts there at less than the store's

Do we have a conclusion based on evidence present only in a related party's claim without verification?  We sure do - the store's competitors are offering us information about the store's lack of profitability.  We don't know if it's true, yet we reach a conclusion about the store's pricing as if it were written in stone.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tutoring for the upcoming LSAT
« on: March 30, 2008, 08:40:22 PM »
The ellipses are a redacted double post.  For some reason, the board keeps freezing and some posts have gone missing.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tutoring for the upcoming LSAT
« on: March 30, 2008, 07:52:22 PM »
I saw that.  I wasn't particularly interested.

Don't forget UW at 30th and UA at 38th for the Pac-10.  Going all the way to the top 100, we find ASU at 52nd and Oregon at 82nd.

A better comparison might be to add up the total point scores of the schools.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tutoring for the upcoming LSAT
« on: March 30, 2008, 06:12:10 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9