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 - Changed Name

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74
Has anybody figured out the logic behind how they release the scores? Last name? Geographic location? I would guess geographic location. Anyone from California receive their scores yet?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Score release rumors/information
« on: October 19, 2007, 02:11:06 PM »
so what's the deal? Are we still thinking that it'll come today? Or is it too late for it now? .. damn, this is just like June. Get your hopes up and then shafted!

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Confusing TCR
« on: October 19, 2007, 01:07:50 PM »
D) attempts to support its conclusion by an appeal to the emotion of fear, which is often experienced by people faced with the prospect of losing their jobs to robots

haha.. and who says the LSAT doesn't like to add bits of humor?

I'll help with the second one also, since i don't want to leave.. haha..

Here it is conditionally:

If you support tax plan, then you have no chance of being elected.

If you know economics, you will NOT support the plan.

Therefore, If you have a chance to be elected, then you have to understand economics.

This is flaw question, and I think the flaw come primarily from the second premise:

If you know economics, you will NOT support the plan.

Knowing econ. is the sufficient condition. If you know econ. you will DEFINITELY NOT support the plan.

but you can still not support the plan and not know economics.
Just because you do not support the plan, we can't assume you know economics (we don't really know anything. Hell, i could not support the plan, but i don't know anything about Econ.)

I think this will become more obvious as you do more and more questions involving necc. and sufficiency.

I'll reply to the first one, and then I have to do something, if no one has responded to the second one, I'll look at it then..

So the first argument is basically this:

Some citizen is arguing that the law enforcement system is losing its ability to prevent violent crime because the number of murders committed has kept on rising year to year.

The city official dude is like "no way, man." Because the population is increasing, and yeah, there are more murders number-wise, but the actually percentage of murders has dropped.

We want to weaken the city official dude. Remember, he is countering the notion that the law enforcement system is losing its ability to prevent violent crime. He does not think this is the case because of the drop in percentage of murders.

TCR is saying that well, violent crimes haven't really dropped, it's just that healthcare is better and less people are dying. But if we think about it, if we didn't have this healthcare system than the murder percentage would be greatly higher. Therefore, violent crime is still happening and happening at a greater rate, it's just that people aren't dying as much...

Let me know if that helps..

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Confusing TCR
« on: October 19, 2007, 12:43:07 AM »
I really think it hinges on the word "substitute." The way it reads is that it is an equivalent switch. That the amount of demeaning work will still equal the same amount of demeaning work. I think that's where the crux of this lies.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Confusing TCR
« on: October 18, 2007, 11:16:28 PM »
Hmm..okay... I'll try to defend the argument:

The guy's conclusion is that the Robots will not cause any change with regards to "demeaning" work. The creation of Robots will merely SUBSTITUTE one demeaning work for another. But his premise is only that maintaining these Robots IS demeaning work.

What's his assumption? He assumes that maintaining the Robots will create the same amount of demeaning work as it eliminates.

So the flaw (which is essentially just an assumption question) is that he fails to consider the possibility that these Robots will eliminate way more demeaning jobs than they create. Therefore, it really cannot be considered a "substitute." I think it all hinges on that word (substitute).

What do you think?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Confusing TCR
« on: October 18, 2007, 08:17:26 PM »
One more thing: A lot of times these flaw questions will exhibit multiple flaws; however, if you don't see the flaw that you come up with in your head, I think you just have to go one by one and check to see if it makes sense. As I was reading the stimulus, I thought the flaw was the same thing you mentioned.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Confusing TCR
« on: October 18, 2007, 08:08:20 PM »
Okay, I'll jump in to try and help you understand this from a different perspective.

The argument is basically saying that "Look, there's an illusion with this whole Robot-building stuff. Because, those who create Robots think that they will be doing us a great favor by reducing "hazardous and demeaning work." But they fail the recognize that the Robots, themselves, will need to be worked on. And that's "demeaning." Therefore, they're just simply replacing where we do the "demeaning" work."

Well, the flaw in this guy's argument is that yeah, we may have to fix the robots, and yes, it may be "demeaning," however, the created Robots may significantly lower the other demeaning jobs in the world, and the only demeaning jobs left are the ones where we maintain the Robots.

I'm sorry if that wasn't a clear explanation. But he's basically overlooking the possibility that the Robots can have a significant impact in reducing the "hazardous and demeaning work" even though they may cause a little work themselves.

Let me know if that helps..

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: W&L 1L Taking Questions
« on: October 10, 2007, 01:47:25 AM »
Out of curiousity, I am of Indian descent (from India, not native American), and I'm wondering how diverse is the Law school? Are there a lot of minorities? Are there any Indians? (I've never been to Virginia).


Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74