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 - halftheloop
« on: October 17, 2007, 08:27:35 PM »
At the end of the year, Wilson's department store awards free merchandise to its top salespeople. When presented with teh fact that the number of salespeople receiving these awards has declined markedly over the past fifteen years, the newly appointed president of the company responded, "In that case, since our award criterion at present is membership in the top third of our sales force, we can also say that the number of salespeople passed over for these awards has similarly declined."
Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the compnay president's conclusion to be properly drawn?
My answer: Wilson's calculates its salespeople's sales figures in the same way as it did fifteen years ago.
TCR: The criterion used by Wilson's for selecting its award recipients has remained the saem for the past fifteen years.
I'm confused about this "passed over... declined" wording. So the president is saying that since the present criteria is being in the top 3rd, not as many people are being rejected? i'm confused how that makes sense.
« on: October 17, 2007, 07:55:36 PM »
Government official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic actvities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.
This is a flawed method of reasoning question. I can tell that the flaw is an incorrect negation, and I got the right answer because I was able to identify so, but I'm unclear on how the government official even proceeds with his argument in the 2nd sentence. What does "public unwillingness to provide funds..." have to do with communicating what we're ready to or if other citizens are not permitted access? Or is the whole point that he (illogically) thinks that just because what he's talking about is so irrelevant from the sufficient condition in the first statement, it must lead to it not being censorship (using an incorrect negation)?
« on: October 17, 2007, 07:39:31 PM »
People cannot be morally responsible for things over which they have no control. Therefore, they should not be held morally responsible for any inevitable consequences of such things, either. Determining whether adults have any control over the treatment they are receiving can be difficult. hence in some cases it can be difficult to know whether adults bear any moral responsibility for the way they are treated. Everyone, however, sometimes acts in ways that are an inevitable consequence of treatment received as an infant, and infants clearly cannot control, and so are not morally responsible for, the treatment they receive.
Anyone making the claims above would be logically committed to which of the following further claims?
My Answer: An infant should never be held morally responsible for an action that infant has performed
TCR: No adult should be held morally responsible for every action he or she performs.
?!?!?!?! and the difference is....
« on: October 17, 2007, 12:47:19 PM »
Since I'm taking the December LSAT, does it make a difference when I send in my completed application? For instance, if I were to send in my application fee/forms today vs. the end of November, would that make the ad committee look at my application earlier or do they look at all of them at once, upon having received the actual LSAT report?
« on: October 16, 2007, 02:42:04 PM »
A recent study concludes that prehistoric birds, unlike modern birds, were cold-blooded. This challenges a widely held view that modern birds descended from warm-blooded birds. The conclusion is based on the existence of growth rings in prehistoric birds' bodily structures, which are thought to be found only in cold blooded animals. Another study, however, disputes this view. It concludes taht prehistoric birds had dense blood vessels in their bones, which suggests that tehy were active creatures and therefore had to be warm-blooded.
Question stem: which one of the following, if true, would most help to resolve the dispute described above in favor of one party to it?
I couldn't decide between the two following answers, the second of which is the CORRECT answer:
D) Dense blood vessels are not found in all warm-blooded species
E) In some cold blooded species the gene that is responsible for growth rings is also responsible for dense blood vessels
If you know it, please explain why E is the correct answer, and why D doesn't help resolve the dispute by providing evidence AGAINST the study (in the last sentence) that `concluded the prehistoric birds had to be warm blooded.
Thanks in advance.
« on: October 16, 2007, 01:18:35 PM »
i haven't even started looking at the apps... but i have a friend who is willing to help me out with making sure at least ONE of my applications is perfecto- so i obviously want to take advantage of her help and choose the most demanding/thorough application? anyone know off hand which T14 requires the most essays/attachments/etc.
« on: October 13, 2007, 09:50:04 PM »
anyone have any good links to LSAT tips/practice material/anything they'd like to share??
« on: October 12, 2007, 11:03:37 PM »
everyone always talks about how you have to detach yourself from the world as we know it and instead enter the "LSAT World of Logic" when we take this test. other than the obvious preparation of learning formal logic/flawed methods of reasoning etc. BEFORE taking the test, any tips on how to totally conquer this mindset actively and successfully WHILE taking the test? for instance, should i approach the stimuli with less focus on the content of what they're saying and try to break it down structurally instead in terms of premise-subsidiary-conclusion?
what i would do for robin's brain...
« on: October 09, 2007, 03:46:54 PM »
my neck is seriously KILLING me from doing these practice tests day in and day out... this test is literally a hazard to my health! i might be the kid you see wearing a neck brace at the exam...
« on: October 09, 2007, 11:44:12 AM »
does this make for a potentially compelling PS topic, or perhaps just a huge turn off to the ad committee? :
VERY LONG story short, my family basically went from riches to rags because my dad was caught for white collar crimes that made him go bankrupt essentially and drained us of everything. needless to say, it has had a huge impact on every corner of my life. is this something that is risky to discuss in a PS - while it's not violence or anything, i dont' want them to think it runs in the family nor that i'm just some formerly-rich-kid complaining about not having money... i just want them to know my experience with seeing the flipside of the law and how much it has affected me blah blah blah.
is white collar crime too mundane? too risky to write about? your thoughts please.