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.

Topics - Waiting for Those Letters

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Studying for the LSAT / PT 41- Section 3- LR 14
« on: November 27, 2007, 11:21:40 AM »
The authorship of the Iliad and the Oddessy has long been debated. Some traditional evidence suggests that Homer created both works, or at least large portions of them, but there is equally forceful evidence that he had nothing to do with either. Since there is no overwhleming evidence for that claim, we ought to accept the verdict of tradition that Homer is the principal of both works.

Which of the following most accurately expresses the principe underlying the argumentation above?

I narrowed it down to two:

b) If a hypothesis goes against tradition, one should not accept the hypothesis without overwhelming evidence.

c) If there is no overwhelming evidence for or against a hypothesis, one should believe it.

The problem I had with B is that  seems to partly express the argument:

 It express not accepting "equally forceful evidence that he had nothing to do with either, " but it does not seem to express "ought to accept the verdict of tradition."

The reason why I thought C was a better choice is b/c I interperted to mean that if there is no overwhelming evidence for ( that Homer created both works) or against (Homer had nothing to do with either) a hypothesis, one should believe it ( that Homer is the principal author of both works).

Studying for the LSAT / PT 41- Section 1- LR 4
« on: November 27, 2007, 10:31:25 AM »
Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indicated, however, that for manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the hcnages in the training programs.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepency in the passage above?

I was stuck between these two:

b) manufacturers tend to improve their job safety training only when they are increasing the size of their workforce.

c) manufacturers tend to improve their job safety training only after they have noticed that the number of on-the-job accidents have increased.

For correct answer highlight here---> B
( amanda rocks for thinking of this..:))

Studying for the LSAT / Preptest 40- Section 3- LR 25
« on: November 26, 2007, 05:01:31 PM »
Inflation will not stabilize unless the rate of economic growth decreases. Yet in order to slow down the economy, the full cooperation of world leaders will be required. Thus, it would be overly optimistic to expect stable inflation rates in the near future.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the reasoning in the argument above?

I narrowed it down to D and E.
The trouble I had with D was that the second sentence is not a necessary/sufficient but seemed like a cause/effect one, and so I could not come up with a chain like I did with the stimulus. Even putting that aside, I just did not see much of a resembelence to the stimulus.

d) if we are to produce the safest vehile possible, we must conduct objective structural tests. However, the performance of such obejctive tests will inevitably result in huge cost overruns. It is  therefore unavoidable that the level of vehicle safety will not be optimal.

e) If honesty is the best policy, we should report our company's poor performane in the last yr. But if we do so, we will put our jobs at risk and our stockholders will complaim. Therefore, we must not report our poor performance.

Thank you.

Studying for the LSAT / PT 40- Section 3- LR 14
« on: November 26, 2007, 04:32:08 PM »

I have strong feeling that 99% would have gotten this answer correct and know why... I must be overthinking this one.

Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note. Ordinarily I would suspect Miller, who has always been jealous of me, but the handwriting is not hers. So, the joker is apparently someone else.

I got to this by way of elimination:
a) It fails to consider the possibility that there was more than one practical joker.

What threw me off is the first sentence of the stimulus that I accepted as a fact- where it's says  "the identity of the practical joker" not "practical jokers." So, I accepted as fact that there was just one practical joker. If this sentence did not exist, then the flaw would be obvious to me since there would be no reason for me to think that the joker is apparently someone else - it could be more than one practical joker.

Studying for the LSAT / LR 17- from PT 39- section 4
« on: November 25, 2007, 06:48:33 PM »
It is obvious that one ought to have a will stating how one wishes one's estate to be distributed. This can easily be seen from the fact that, according to current laws, in the absence of a legal will distant relatives whom one has never met have a greater legal right to one's estate than one's beloved friends do.

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

I narrowed it down to two. I negated both, and both seem to break down the argument. So, I was stuck.

a) No one want his or her estate to go to someone he or she has never met. If I negate this, it says that some people would want his/her estate to go to someone... So, these people don't necessarily need to have a will. So, doesn't this break the argument that a will has to be done?

d) People are generally not indifferent about how their estates are distributed.
I understood why d was right.

Studying for the LSAT / Preptest 39- Section 4- LR 17
« on: November 25, 2007, 06:18:36 PM »
I narrowed the answer to two choices.

Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast marjoty of which are started by lightening, are not only a natural phenomenon to which all forest ecosystems are well adapted, but are required for many forests to flourish. Forest fires facilitate the opening and spreading of see pods, prevent an overabundance of insects, and promote diversity of forests by preventing certain varieties of aggressive weeds from dominating other species. In view of this, systematic attempts by human beings to prevent or control forest fires are ill-advised and shortsighted; forest fires should be left alone and allowed to burn themseleves out naturally.

The conclusion above follows logicall if which of the following is assumed?

a) Human intervention in natural processes tends to reduce the biological diversity of ecosystems.
b) Protection of forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires.

B is the credited response. I had trouble with this b/c I was thinking that "protection of forests and their ecosystems" could fall under systematic attempts of human beings to prevent or control the forst fired. So, then I thought that what ecologists says that humane doings is NOT ill-advised and shortsighted.

A made sense to me b/c the stimulus says that that forest burning promotes diversity so human intervention would reduce the diversity and so that could be a reason why systamtic attempts by humans would be ill-advised and shortsighted. ( I know that if what I was thinking was correct that it would not be justifying the other parts of the stimulus that dealt with preventing overabundance of insects and etc).

thank you, as always.

Studying for the LSAT / PT 14- Section 1- LR 25
« on: November 23, 2007, 03:52:43 PM »
A letter submitted to the editor of a national newsmagazine was written and signed by Dr. Shirley Martin who, in the text of the letter, mentions being a professor at a major North American medical school. Knowing that fewer than 5 percent of the professors at such schools are women, the editor reasons that the chances are better than 19 to 1 that the letter was written by a man.

Just of curosity, could the fact that a piece of evidence is being ignored (in that Shirley is a girl's name) be a flaw here???

I got to the correct answer by way of elimination:
Fewer than 1 in 20 of the manuscripts submitted to Argon Publishing Co. are accepted for publication. Since only 15 manuscripts were submitted last week, there is almost no chance of any of them will be accepted for publication.


Studying for the LSAT / *****preptest 14- section 4 -LR 25******
« on: November 23, 2007, 03:45:11 PM »
This was an interesting one...

In Peru, ancient disturbances in the dark surface material of a desert show up as light-colored lines that are the width of a footpath and stretch for long distances. One group of lines branching out like rays from a single point crosses over curved lines that form a ver large bird figure. Interpreting the lines in the desert as landing strips for spaceship-traveling aliens, an investigator argues that they could hardly have been Inca roads, asking, "What use to the Inca would have been closely roads that ran parallel? That intersected in a sunburst pattern? That came abruptly to an end in them middle of an uninhabited plain?

Question: For someone who interprets the lines as referring to astronomical phenomena, which one of the following if true, most effectivel counters an objection that the crossing of the straight-line patterns over the bird figure shows that the two kinds of line pattern served unrelated purposes?

a) in areas that were inhabited by ancient native North American peoples, arrangements of stones have been found that mark places where sunlight falls precisely on the spring solstice, an astronomically determined date.

b) the straight lines are consistent with sight lines to points on the horizon where particular astronomical events could have been observed at certain plausible dates, and the figure could represent a constellation.

c) the straight-line pattern is part of a large connected complex of patterns of straight-line rays connecting certain points with one another.

d) Native Central American, cultures, such as that of the Maya, left behind elaborate astronomical calendars that were engraved on rocks.

e) there is evidence that the bird figure was made well before the straight-line patterns.

thank you.

Studying for the LSAT / Preptest 13- Section 2 Flaw
« on: November 22, 2007, 09:42:41 PM »
Man, I had a trouble with this preptest. I got a 162- the LR section brought me down.

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the liklihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.

I got to the CR by elimination.

The reasoning is flawed b/c:
a) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well.

Studying for the LSAT / preptest 13 section 2 LR 18
« on: November 22, 2007, 09:34:02 PM »
Each year, an official estimate of the stock of cod in the Grand Bank is announced. This estimate is obtained by averaginf two separate estimates of how many cod are available, one based on the number of the cod caught by research vessels during a once-yearly sampling of the area and the other on the average numbers of tons of cod caught by various commercial vessels per unit of fishing effort expended there in the past year- a unit of fishing effort being one kilometer of net set out in the water for one hour. In previous decades, the two esimates usually agreed closely. However, for the last decade the estimate based on commercial tonnage has been increasing markedly, by about the same amount as the sampling-based estimate has been decreasing.

If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?

A) last year's official estimate was probably not much different from the official estimate ten yrs ago

How could this answer be true? The last sentence of the stimulus states that the estimates have been changing.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6