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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14
111
Studying for the LSAT / UN
« on: October 19, 2007, 08:37:27 AM »
After the UN Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a cetain cuntry, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemning its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. A parliamentary leader insisted that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not imply the parliament's opposition to the anticipated intervention; on the contrary, most members of parliament supported the UN plan.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy presented above?

My choice: The parliament would be responsible for providing the funding necessary in order to contribute military personnel to the UN intervention. ( I figured, they thought they would only provide MONEY and not PEOPLE, so they were pissed when the parliamentary leader violated this promise?)

Right answer:  In the parliamentary leader's nation, it is teh constitutional prerogative of the parliament, not of the prime minister, to initiate foreign military action.  ( I guess i get this one... but why is it that much stronger than my choice???)

thoughts?

112
Studying for the LSAT / Re: burglars
« on: October 19, 2007, 07:34:04 AM »

Q: the statement that burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries plays which one fo the following roles in teh argument?

my choice: it justifies placing more restrictions on owners of burglar alarms than on owners of car alarms.
TCR: it provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternate to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms.
 

Your Answer:  You don't know enough about car alarms to make the comparison.  You know they don't work, but you don't know anything else, like if false car alarms waste police time.  So you can't compare.

TCR: Because burgular alarms are effective in deterring burglaries, you can exclude the option of banning them outright (which would be in order if they were not deterrents and were causing all those false alarms).

But in terms of my answer, you do know enough that the car alarms are less effective than the burglar alarms (as you said in your explanation for TCR)... so is tha tnot enough to justify more restrictions on the burglar alarms?

113
Studying for the LSAT / new tax plan
« on: October 17, 2007, 06:59:45 PM »
Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed becaue the argument ignores the posibility that some people who:

a) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
b) truly understand economicshave no chance of being elected
c) do not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
d) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
e) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

I'm pretty sure I'm thinking about the logic of this right. 
Supports New Tax Plan --> No chance being elected
Truly understands economics --> not support tax plan

Flawed conclusion: Elected --> Truly understands economics

I'm just confused as to how to deduct what exactly the stimulus is ignoring in making this rather jumbled conclusion?

114
Studying for the LSAT / Re: argh
« on: October 17, 2007, 06:40:43 PM »
At present they award the top 1/3 of the sales force.  The president is saying that if the number represented by that top 1/3 is getting smaller, then the number *not* getting awards ("passed over") is also getting smaller, since it's a fixed ratio.  If the criteria for determining the top salespeople 15 years ago were different, it's possible that the ratio of those who won awards to those who didn't was different than it is today, and no inference can be drawn about the relative sizes of the two groups between then and now.

Edit: For a concrete example.  Let's say that 15 years ago, half of the workers got the bonus. Say there are 150 workers both then and now.

15 years ago:
75 workers get the bonus, 75 don't.

Today:
50 workers get the bonus, 100 don't.

Then the president's argument is wrong - the number of people not getting awards is going up, not down.

ohhh, ok i get it, thanks again!

115
Studying for the LSAT / argh
« on: October 17, 2007, 06:27:35 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.

116
Studying for the LSAT / Re: clarification of the flaw please?
« on: October 17, 2007, 06:19:48 PM »
gotcha. you are great with explanations, please feel free to answer the (many) other questions i will probably be posting in the near future...!

117
Studying for the LSAT / clarification of the flaw please?
« on: October 17, 2007, 05:55:36 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)?

118
Studying for the LSAT / Re: infants and adults
« on: October 17, 2007, 05:49:30 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....

never mind, just diagrammed and got it

119
Studying for the LSAT / infants and adults
« on: October 17, 2007, 05:39:31 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....

120
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? 

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