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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
Studying for the LSAT / wtf whale bones
« on: November 19, 2007, 09:39:29 AM »
June 1992, section 3, question 6

As air-breathing mammals, whales must once have lived on land and needed hind limbs capable of supporting the mammal's weight. Whales have the bare remnants of a pelvis. Ifanimals have a pelvis, we expect them to have hind limbs. A newly discovered fossilized whale skeleton has very fragile hind limbs that could not have supported the animal's weight on land. This skeleton had a partial pelvis.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following, if true, wold most strogly support the conclusion that the fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whales once had?

(A) Whale bones older than the fossilized hind limbs confirm that ancient whales had full pelvises.
(B) No skeletons of ancient whales with intact hind limbs capable of supporting the mammals' weight have ever been found
(C) Scientists are uncertain whether the apparently nonfunctioning limbs of other early mammals derived from once-functioning limbs of their ancestors
(D) Other large bodied mammals like seals and sea lions maneuver on beaches and rocky coasts without fully functioning hind limbs
(E) Some smaller sea-dwelling mammals such as modern dolphins, have no visible indications of hind limbs

The CR is A.  I don't get how you can justify such a conclusion about this fragmented piece of whale scrap when it seems like there are a thousand assumptions going on.  and why is the CR right over the other ACs anyway?

explanations for every test?? that's a pretty good deal. are these only available to students who have signed up for Kaplan's LSAT course or are these available through publications?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: suffiicent assumption question
« on: November 16, 2007, 04:10:47 PM »
"As far as rechecking an answer to be sure it is correct, again, for this type question (and especially this question) I cannot imagine that all that negating and other twisting is necessary or even time well-spent."

it's really not that complicated.  For a sufficient assumption question, all you do is: If the answer is true, then the conclusion must be true.  No negations, twists and turns are needed.

i have no idea what that means

why aren't they disclosed? 

Studying for the LSAT / Re: suffiicent assumption question
« on: November 16, 2007, 03:10:25 PM »
how would that never have relevance?  it seems relevant to me, even in this case.  here, we could use it as a check to make sure that since the answer choice we're looking for should be a sufficient assumption, then that IF the answer choice is TRUE, then indeed the CONCLUSION must be 100% true.

Studying for the LSAT / Since we're on the subject of June 2007...
« on: November 15, 2007, 08:32:46 PM »
Are there any published explanations for this out there?  Or for that matter, have there been any published explanations for any of the 2000s?

Studying for the LSAT / Diagramming this
« on: November 09, 2007, 12:54:58 PM »
September 2006, Section 2, 14

The economy is doing badly. FIrst, the real estate slump has been with us for some time. SEcond, car sales are at their lowest in years. Of course, had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. But, their occurrence together makes it quite probably that my conclusion is correct.

I diagrammed this as:

RE Slump + CS lowest ---> Economy is doing badly

The question stem is: WHich one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

THe CR is: If the economy is in a healthy state, then it is unlikely that the real estate and car sales markets are both in a slump.

So I basically diagrammed the incorrect reversal of this.  But how do you know which comes first?  Every time I look at this stimulus, I don't see how you know whether to put the RE Slump and Car Sales as the Sufficient or the Necessary. Help please? Thanks in advance.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: preptests 2005-2007
« on: November 09, 2007, 12:46:11 PM »
i knwo LG is supposed to be easier, but in what ways is LR supposed to be harder?  is it like longer stimuli or more abstract terms or what?

Studying for the LSAT / preptests 2005-2007
« on: November 08, 2007, 11:57:36 AM »
so these are the last ones i have left (June/October/December of 2005 and 2006, and June 2007). anyone recommend that i take them in a particular order until Dec 1st, or does it not really matter? 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15