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 - PNym

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 64
51
No, but my prep class recently covered paradox/explain problems, and this thought came to mind. I wasn't sure if this thought accurately characterized these types of problems, though, and so wanted additional verification.

52
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Need help understanding LR: Resolve TCR
« on: November 06, 2007, 11:50:11 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.")

53
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Need help understanding LR: Resolve TCR
« on: November 06, 2007, 09:50:09 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?

54
Do resolve/explain problems ever contain an argument, or do they always consist entirely of fact sets?

55
Studying for the LSAT / Need help understanding LR: Resolve TCR
« on: November 06, 2007, 09:15:04 PM »
Quote
Michelangelo's sixteenth-century Sistine Chapel paintings are currently being restored. A goal of the restorers is to uncover Michelangelo's original work, and so additions made to Michelangelo's paintings by later artists are being removed. However, the restorers have decided to make one exception: to leave intact additions that were painted by da Volterra.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the restorers' decision with the goal stated in the passage?

TCR) The restorers believe that da Volterra stripped away all previous layers of paint before he painted his own additions to the Sistine Chapel.


But if da Volterra stripped away all previous layers of paint, wouldn't he have destroyed Michaelangelo's work?

How does this resolve the paradox?

56
Studying for the LSAT / More causal relationships in science RC passages?
« on: November 03, 2007, 10:41:14 PM »
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?

57
I have a fast metabolism, and so quickly tire if I don't frequently eat. I'm worried this issue will impact my test performance. Can anyone suggest methods to minimize this factor? I know complex carbs (e.g. oatmeal) digest slowly, and so can provide energy over an extended period of time, but I'd like to hear other suggestions as well.

58
Incoming 1Ls / Re: What's a "Gunner?"
« on: November 02, 2007, 01:10:29 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?

59
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: NYU 1L taking questions
« on: November 02, 2007, 12:09:46 PM »
Is Washington Square Park somewhat nice or like Home Alone 2 Kevin alone in the park at night scary?

Is the student body Dennis Kucinich liberal or Hillary Clinton liberal?

Washington Square Park is definitely "somewhat nice".  ;D There are a good share of bums that hang around, but they're generally harmless. During the day it's always packed with students and tourists, awesome jazz bands, and people playing chess. You basically just have to exercise good judgment when walking alone at night, like in any other city- but I haven't heard of anyone having any problems in the park.

The study body is a little bit Dennis Kucinich, a little bit Hillary Clinton, and a little bit....Giuliani/McCain, maybe? There is a place for everyone here, as far as I can tell. I'm a moderate, and I don't feel out of place at all, or at odds with any of my classmates. It's really all about respecting each other as classmates, and future colleagues. We certainly have a group of 1Ls who are very "law and economics" centered, and pretty republican, and no one gives them a hard time- unless, of course, they're gunners.  ;) People here are generally respectful of each other.



What is "law and economics?" I've heard that UChicago has a strong program, and I've read a book that won a "Law and Economics" prize, but I'm not sure what defines this field of study.

Law and ec is basically taking economic concepts and applying them as a method for analyzing the law- it can be used a lot of different ways, but in my classes it tends to come up most frequently in the context of the costs and benefits of the application of particular laws. For example, we spent some time in torts the other day talking about the "value of human life"- if you have a situation where there is an old man and young baby in the path of an oncoming train, who do you save? The old man, because he has lots of life experience to share? The baby, because he has the rest of his life to live? Can you economically justify the old man being "worth" less than the baby because the odds are he will die of natural causes in the very near future, while the baby has his entire life to live?

It can also come up when looking at negligence, and figuring out when a party should have taken due care. If the cost of paying for damages is less than the cost of implementing the necessary safety updates, a party might choose to just pay for the damages. Obviously it's more complicated than that (and I'm not personally a big law and ec person, so I might not be the best person to explain it), but I'm sure you get the picture.

Chicago does have a great law and ec program- from what I hear, the profs emphasize it a lot in class. Epstein, who is a Chicago prof., teaches torts at NYU for one semester every year as a visiting prof and is really big on law and ec- he actually wrote the textbook. It also comes up in contracts all the time.

Hey, thanks for the explanation. :)

60
Incoming 1Ls / Re: What's a "Gunner?"
« on: November 02, 2007, 12:07:52 PM »
I've even had a some "gunners" in my undergrad classes.  It is one thing to be interested and involved in a class, but it is another to feel like you need to share your 2 cents about everything that is brought up.  These people also like to just "make sure that they understand" what is being taught (hence they restate everything that the professor just spent 30 minutes explaining and then come up with some random example that would try and counter it).  I can only imagine that gunners become more annoying in law school, since they want to try and separate themselves from the rest of the class.  Blah.  The only separation that occurs is that the professor begins ignoring them and everyone else rolls their eyes when they raise their hands. 

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.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 64