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 - ssilver0210

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19
51
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Help needed for LR question (Prep45#15)
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:40:00 AM »
You're welcome; glad it made some sense.

52
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Help needed for LR question (Prep45#15)
« on: January 28, 2009, 12:40:02 PM »
Choices B-E, directly address some aspect of a student's life, which could then have the potential to effect the student's ability to pay.

B: The courses for which the student is required to enroll have increased.

C: The cost of living for the student has risen.

D: The number of scholarships awarded to the students has decreased

E: The number of jobs available to students has decreased.

Choice A, on the other hand, is directed towards a situation involving the faculty. You're correct, you can take what is stated and stretch it accordingly so that the effect trickles down to the students, but certainly out of the five choices it is the odd one out, in that it does not speak directly to a situation in which the student is most likely to be affected.

I also think the word "slightly" was placed in choice A to weaken the possibility that the increase in teacher salaries would have any significant effect on the students.

53
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tax plans over my head!
« on: January 27, 2009, 08:56:28 AM »
We know that anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected. We're then told that anyone who understands economics would not support the new tax plan. 

We're only given information about people who understand economics. We're not given any information about people who do not understand economics, so you have to be careful not to make conclusions based on insufficient information.

As an example take a guy named Jim.  Let's say Jim does not support the new tax plan. If Jim does not support the new tax plan, then we can not conclude, based on the info provided, that Jim has no chance of being elected.

But we don't know whether or not Jim understands economics. It's true that if you understand economics you will not support the plan, but it's not true that only those who understand economics will not support the plan. It's possible that Jim does not understand economics, even though he does not support the plan.

That's basically what choice D tells us.  It's possible to not support the plan, and to not understand economics.

54
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tips for the LR section
« on: January 25, 2009, 03:55:58 PM »
I agree with all comments to your question.  Also, I really don't think this test lends itself to skimming. Of course, you want to figure out a way to get through the questions in an amount of time that will allow you to answer them all, but skimming is likely the wrong approach.  The questions test details, which can easily be missed if you gloss over the stimulus too quickly.

With that said, you can reach a point where you can look over the wrong answer choices very quickly.  Ideally, you will look them all over (very quickly) just to be certain that you've not only chosen the right answer, but that there is something wrong with all the other answers. You're on the right track when you're reading the stimulus and before even approaching the choices, you've noticed the flaw in the logic.  If, instead, you're moving on to the answer choices before having a pretty definitive reason as to why the logic is flawed in the stimulus, then I'd say that you are not where you want to be in terms of doing your best on the exam.

Once you get to that point, where you are noticing the flaw in logic within the stimulus, you'll see a decrease in the time it takes for you to answer each question. I think where you may be going wrong based on my reading of your approach is that you're searching for shortcuts, whereas the only way to improve speed and accuracy on this test is through persistence and hard work. As others have said, you're trying to train your brain to think in the way that is required for this test; that in itself takes time.

55
Quote
For example, if someone told the occupants in a room that some men there killed John, one might assume that someone in that room did not kill John.  ]

Not if one has studied for the LSAT.  :D

56
I'm a bit confused by the Powerscore numbers as well.  Would like some feedback if I am off here, but this is how I see it:

Let's say you had 20 friends.  You go somewhere where all 20 friends are present.  It would be valid for you to tell someone that all of your friends are present. It would also be valid for you to tell someone that some of your friends are present.  If all (20) are present, then some (1-20) have to be present.  This is because there are zero numbers within the category of "some" which fall outside the category of "all."

But, if you were to say that some (1-20) are present, it would not be valid to conclude that all (20) are present.  Some can be any number 1-20.  Nineteen numbers within the category of "some" do not fall within the category of "all." Though it's possible that all are present, we can not state with certainty that all are present.

Same idea, but this time you go somewhere where all (20) of your friends are not present. It would be valid for you to say that all (20) of your friends are not present, and it would also be valid for you to say that some (1-20) of your friends are not present. There are no numbers within the category of "some," which fall outside the category of "all."

But if you were to say that some (any number 1-20) of your friends are not present, it would not be valid to conclude that all (20) of your friends are not present, for the same reason stated above. Any number 1-19 of your friends might not be present, and each of those numbers would fall outside the category of "all."

Same idea with "most" vs "all." Anytime all are present, it's also valid to claim that most are present, but by saying that most are present, you can not conclude that all are present. 

It's also the same idea with "most" vs "some."  If most (let's say 11-20) are present, then it's valid to claim that some (1-20) are present, because even if only 11 are present, that still falls within the category of "some" because 11 falls within 1-20. In other words, all numbers within the category of "most" also fall within the category of "some." 

But if some are present, you can not conclude that most are present, because with "some" it's possible that less than 11 people are present, and any number less than 11 does not fall within the category of most (11-20).

This is my reasoning, and again, I'd be interested to hear from others.

57
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Diagramming question
« on: January 19, 2009, 04:44:58 PM »
It's absolutely fundamental that you understand the distinction between sufficient and necessary conditions. Making the mistake that you've made will hurt your score on both the Logical Reasoning and Logic Games section.

Just to add to what Noumena was saying:

If it is an apple, then it is red.

Simply knowing it's an apple is sufficient for concluding that it is red.  In other words, once we have an apple, we can conclude that it is red. We can also conclude that if something is not red, then it is not an apple.  We can conclude this because it is the contrapositive of our original statement. 

On the other hand, the condition that something is an apple is not necessary for concluding that something is red. It need not be an apple for it to be red.

In contrast, look at the following example:

If, and only if, it is an apple, then it is red.

In this case, knowing it is an apple is necessary and sufficient for determining it is red. If it's not an apple, then it is not red.




58
Studying for the LSAT / Re: HOW? So much frustration.
« on: January 14, 2009, 02:22:34 PM »
I know you are not supposed to post specific questions on this board, but feel free to e-mail me with some LR questions that are causing you trouble, and I'll see if I can help you to reformulate your thinking. Figuring out the errors in your thinking is more important than figuring out the errors on any individual problems.

There are also numerous great posters on this board who can help you out to fix your problems.

59
That's a good analogy. I think what you need to understand is that the teenager's response actually would very much weaken the argument of the person who told him to stop smoking. What you need to focus on is the reason why the person told him to stop smoking. In other words, the person who told him to stop smoking would be saying, "stop smoking, because your smoking is causing harm to other people." The teenager would say, I don't need to stop, even if I stop, others will be harmed.

The fact that other people are smoking does not mean that the teenager is not causing harm to other people by smoking, but it does weaken the argument that he should stop smoking simply because he is harming others. (They are being harmed anyway).

Think of two possible scenarios.

(1): The teenager is the only person in the world who smokes, and other are being harmed by his smoking.

(2): Many people smoke, and all contribute to the harm of others.

In scenario (1), there is a stronger argument for the teenager to stop smoking to prevent harm to others, because he/she, by not smoking, can alone prevent other from being harmed.  If the goal is to prevent harm to others, then scenario (2) is much weaker, because even if he/she stops, the harm continues. 

60
With all questions, you need to have an understanding of what the argument is stating, and how the argument is flawed, even before getting to the answer choices. This comes with practice.

The argument here is that because the US continues to manufacture certain pesticides, and exports those pesticides to other countries, the US is putting other countries at risk, and the US is putting itself at risk as well, because it might later import products from other countries which contain some of the pesticides that it had originally exported.

Assume choice C to be true. If the US was not the only country to export the same pesticides mentioned in the argument, then even if the US was not exporting those pesticides, the other countries might still be harmed by the pesticides, and the US might still be harmed by the pesticides by importing those products which contain the pesticides exported by other countries.

The key here is to understand that the argument stated that the problems the US and other countries might face is due to the US exporting the pesticides. Choice C seriously weakens that conclusion, because it provides for the possibility that those problems would still exist even if the US were not exporting the pesticides.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19