Law School Discussion

I was able to select the correct response for this problem, but wasn't able to diagram the conditional relationships in it. Can anyone help?

Stim:

Some government economists view their home economies as immune to outside influence. But economies are always open systems; international trade significantly affects prices and wages. Just as physicists learned the shortcomings of a mechanics based on idealizations such as the postulation of perfectly frictionless bodies, government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper.

Stem: The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

TCR: A national economy cannot prosper unless every significant influence on it has been examined by the nation's government economists.

Quote from: Pseudo Nym on November 06, 2007, 11:50:09 PM

Quote from: DerekShiHarvard on November 06, 2007, 11:30:45 PM

A goal of the restorers is to uncover Michelangelo's original work

they do this by removing additions by later artists

but they decide not to remove the additions by Volterra.—-this is the paradox, why would they do this when it goes directly against the goal?

TCR: Volterra stripped away all of Michelangelo’s paintings before he painted his own. So seeing as Michelangelo’s paintings are already destroyed, there is no point at all to remove Volterra’s additions. This does not further the goal, because they are already destroyed

But if da Volterra destroyed Michelangelo's work, how would leaving his paintings on the Sistine Chapel help restore Michaelangelo's work (the goal of the restorers)? If Michelangelo's work is destroyed, it can't be restored, can it?

That is exactly the point. It cannot be restored because it is destroyed, and that is the reason for their exception.

You are looking too far in to it. You only need to determine an acceptable justification for leaving Volterra's paintings intact. Removing Volterra's additions won't ever restore Michelangelo's paintings, so they figure they will just not touch them at all.

But why leave only Volterra's paintings intact? Why remove the artwork of the other artists, if Michaelangelo's original work is known to have been destroyed?

I'm not pressing the point to be a male private part; I honestly don't understand how TCR resolves this paradox.

(Odd... why does LSD change "d-i-c-k" to "male private part"? "male private part Cheney is the Vice President of the United States.")

Do resolve/explain problems ever contain an argument, or do they always consist entirely of fact sets?

I've noticed that several of the science RC passages I've had trouble with contain a lot of causal relationships. Is this generally true of science RC passages?

Quote from: Pseudo Nym on November 02, 2007, 02:07:52 PM

Is checking to see that you understood what was taught by paraphrasing the professor generally frowned upon, or only when it's obvious that you're doing so to self-aggrandize? When I'm not sure I understand what someone is saying in casual conversation, I have a habit of paraphrasing it and asking them if my understanding is correct. I don't want this habit to rub off on classmates the wrong way.

No. There are people who talk a lot who I don't think of as gunners. They ask a lot of questions (often questions everyone else has); they are genuinley trying to understand what the professor has said, and it seems that's part of how they learn. I can see how they would annoy some people, but on the whole I don't think they're disliked on the gunner level.

So would it be accurate to describe a gunner as someone who's self-aggrandizement distracts from the flow of the class? Which is distinct from someone who participates in class to better acquire the systemized knowledge being taught, without distracting from the substance of the course?