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 - halftheloop

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15
Studying for the LSAT / Re: stuck between two choices...
« on: November 08, 2007, 11:51:47 AM »
get over it. if it's not helping you study, then don't read the posts. your time is better spent reading the posts you do find useful, not ranting and copying and pasting evidence to convince others what they should put up in their posts.

Studying for the LSAT / earth to mars
« on: November 05, 2007, 05:22:09 PM »
December 98, Sec 2, 9

The only physical factor preventing a human journey to mars has been weight. Carrying enough fuel to propel a conventional spacecraft to mars and back would make even the lightest craft too heavy to be launched from Earth.  A device has recently been invented, however, that allows an otherwise conventional spacecraft to refill the craft's fuel tanks with fuel manufactured from the Martian atmosphere for the return trip. Therefore, it is possible for people to go to Mars in a spacecraft that carries this device and then return.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

TCR: THe device for manufacturing fuel for the return to Earth weighs less than teh tanks of fuel that a conventional spacecraft would otherwise need to carry from Earth for the return trip.

Unfortunately, this was answer E and I was quick to bubble in an earlier answer before getting to this.  Why is this one wrong, however?

The amount of fuel needed for a spacecraft to return from Mars is the same as the amount of fuel needed to travel from Earth to Mars.

What if you needed 10,000 times the amount of fuel to return from Mars to Earth?  Then that manufactured fuel wouldn't necessarily fit inside the fuel tank if it was made to fit only for the trip from Earth to Mars, right?  I'm confused. Help?

Studying for the LSAT / flawed parallel method of reasoning question
« on: November 05, 2007, 05:17:12 PM »
this is from December 1999 Section 2 question 25

The judgment that an artist is great always rests on assessments of the work the artist has produced. A series of great works is the only indicator of greatness. Therefore, to say that an artist is great is just to summarize the quality of his or her known works, and the artist's greatness can provide no basis for predicting the quality of the artist's unknown or future works.

Which one of the following contains questionable reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

TCR: The only way of knowing whether someone has a cold is to observe symptoms. Thus, when a person is said to have a cold, this means only that he or she has displayed the symptoms of a cold, and no prediction about the patient's future symptoms is justified.

What's going on exactly here? I don't get it. 

« on: November 04, 2007, 08:36:38 AM »
to be fair, often posters (like myself) often post having already understood the rest of the wrong answers and only wanting to know exactly why the CR is right - so it's unnecessary to take the extra time and space to type up all the other answers, which would be equally annoying. 

i think a good compromise is to do what i've seen Kits44 and other posters do - put up what you want, but at least put up the Test #/Question # so that if readers either want to see the other answers/try doing it themselves, or just want to be sure not to be spoiling future preptests, the info is there to look it up yourself. 

Studying for the LSAT / flawed pattern of reasoning
« on: October 23, 2007, 08:06:45 PM »
i thought i knew what the flaw is, but my abstract reasonign doesn't seem to match up to the right AC...

NOt all tenured faculty are full professors. Therefore, although every facult member in the linguistics department has tenure, it must be the case that not all of the faculty members in teh linguistics department are full professors.

The flawed pattern of reasoning above is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?

TCR: Although some buildings designed by famous architects are not well proportioned, all government buildings are designed by famous architects.  Therefore, some government buildings are not well proportioned.

Help? What is teh flaw??

Studying for the LSAT / calling for lsat guru help, please!
« on: October 23, 2007, 07:57:49 PM »
Scientists analyzing air bubbles that had been trapped in Antarctic ice during the Earth's last ice age found that the ice-age atmosphere had contained unusually large amounts of ferrous material and surprisingly small amounts of carbon dioxide.  One scientist noted that algae absorb arbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The scientist hypothesized that the ferrous material, which was contained in atmospheric dust, had promoted a great increase in teh population of Antarctic algae such as diatoms.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the scientist's hypothesis?

C) The dust found in the air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice contained other minerals in addition to the ferrous material. (I chose this one because I thought this showed there could be an alternate source rather than just the ferrous material that could have been the reason to "promote a great increase in... diatoms"
D) (TCR) Sediment from the ocean floor near Antarctic reflects no increase during the last ice in the rate at which the shells that diatoms leave when they die accumulated.

Now is TCR "more correcT" because it kills the hypothesis more directly?  When approaching these "undermine" questions, is it more important to look at what immediately kills the conclusion rather than see what undermines the premises that get you to the conclusion?  is the case the same for strengthen questions (look at what you can do immediately to the conclusion rather tahn to the premises)?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: takes for granted question
« on: October 22, 2007, 11:29:03 AM »

Studying for the LSAT / takes for granted question
« on: October 21, 2007, 01:00:11 PM »
A year ago the gov't reduced the highway speed limit and in the year since there have been significantly ewer highway fatalities than there were in the prvious year. THerefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.

The argument is most vulnerable t teh criticism that it takes for granted that:

I was stuck between the following choices:

B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit (if they didn't, then wouldn't it be tough to say that the speed limit reduction is the reason why traffic fatalities happened??)
C)there is a relation between driving speed and the # of automobile accidents (i'm guessing that the thing wrong hereis that the AC talks about 'automobile accidents' rather than traffic fatalities specifically?)
E) The number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high

E is correct. i think i know why C is wrong, but can someone explain why B is wrong? and ho E is stronger? for E, even if the # of traffic fatalities WAS abnormally higher, isn't it possible that was abnormally higher beaus people were driving faster, so the speed limit did in fact help bring it back to normal??

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Official December Test takers??
« on: October 21, 2007, 09:21:42 AM »
hoping for a miraculous 8 point jump sometime before then...

Studying for the LSAT / comets
« on: October 20, 2007, 04:52:43 PM »
When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 becoming 1,000 times brighter in Sept 1995, they correctly hypothesized that its increased brightness was a result of the comet's breaking up - when comets break up, they emit large amounts of gas and dust, becoming visibly brighter as a result.  However, their observations did not reveal comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 actually breaking into pieces until November 1995, even though telescopes were trained on it throughout the entire period.

Which of the following most helps to resolve the  apparent conflict in the statements abovve?

I chose: Comets often do not emit gas and dust until several weeks after they have begun to break up ( I interpreted this as: so there's the possibility that they broke up, then they started to emit gas/dust weeks later but by the time that gas and dust became bright enough for astronomers to start watching, their observations were too late to cover the actual breaking-up-into-pieces)

Right answer:  Gas and dust can be released by cracks in a comet even if the comet is not broken all the way through. 

ummm someone pelase tell me why my answer is wrong and why the right answer is so?

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15