Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Question

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19
21
Studying for the LSAT / Re: 2 LR Questions
« on: February 06, 2005, 02:01:59 PM »
Am I correct in stating that D) can't be concluded from "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 rather from the final sentence?

I'm trying to determine if I should've diagrammed both statements and their respective contrapositives.

22
Studying for the LSAT / Re: 2 LR Questions
« on: February 06, 2005, 01:46:43 PM »
Above was #14 from Section 2 of October 2001.

The following is #21 from from Section 2 of October 2001:

It is likely that Claudette is a classical pianist.  Like most classical pianists, Claudette recognizes many of Clara Schumann's works.  The vast majority of people who are not classical pianists have not even heard of Clara Schumann.

The reasoning in the argument above is flawed in that it

E)  Ignores the possibility that the majority of people who recognize many of Clara Schumann's works are not classical pianists.


I diagram it as follows:

Classical Pianists MOST Recognizes Works
~Classical Pianists MOST ~Recognize Works

Isn't E) directly contradicted by the info in the stimulus?

23
Studying for the LSAT / 2 LR Questions
« on: February 06, 2005, 01:39:04 PM »
Someone please help:


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 ears.  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 probable that my conclusion is correct.

Which one of he following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

A)  If car sales are at their lowest in years, then it is likely that the economy is doing badly.

B)  If the economy is doing badly, then either the real estate market or the sales market is not healthy.

C)  If the real estate market is healthy, then it is likely that the economy as a whole is healthy.

D)  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.

E)  The bad condition of the economy implies that both the real estate and the car sales markets are doing badly.


I diagram this as follows:

Conclusion:  The economy is doing badly
~Real Estate Slump or ~Car Sales Lowest ---> Economy Healthy
~Economy Healthy ---> Real Estate Slump and Car Sales Lowest

BUT, then I also diagram the final sentence as:
Real Estate Slump and Car Sales Lowest ---> ~Economy Healthy
Economy Healthy ---> ~Real Estate Slump or Car Sales Lowest


Am I diagramming this properly?  Based on this, C), D), and E) are all fine.  I'm not sure what the answer is as I left the key at home, but it's from October 2004.



24
Studying for the LSAT / How to be as annoying as possible during the LSAT
« on: February 01, 2005, 04:16:30 PM »
1.  Read the man's voice of a "Point At Issue" question out loud as if you're He-Man; read the woman's voice out loud as if you're a Smurf.  If both speakers are of the same sex, pinch your nose while speaking out loud for the second speaker.

2.  Perform your process of elimination out loud...  Say things like, "No!  That doesn't relate to his conclusion!"

3.  At the beginning of Section 2, exclaim, "What?  2 Experimental Sections!" 

25
Studying for the LSAT / Re: A Great S-N Question - Part Deux
« on: January 24, 2005, 03:04:11 PM »
Anyone know what the answer is?  I got the diagram correct, I believe:

BA Some FC <--- G
Therefore, B Some G

GA Some FC <--- B
Therefore, B Some G

But, I can't figure out how D describes their error...

I figured it out while eating Cheerios...  If you reverse the order of the items in their conditional statements, you end up with a valid deduction.

BA Some FC ---> G

26
Studying for the LSAT / Re: A Great S-N Question - Part Deux
« on: January 24, 2005, 02:55:50 PM »
Anyone know what the answer is?  I got the diagram correct, I believe:

BA Some FC <--- G
Therefore, B Some G

GA Some FC <--- B
Therefore, B Some G

But, I can't figure out how D describes their error...

27
Studying for the LSAT / Re: ISO: Casca
« on: January 20, 2005, 03:47:30 PM »
Thanks  :)

Preptest #36 (Dec. '01), Section 1, Question 4

28
Studying for the LSAT / Re: ISO: Casca
« on: January 20, 2005, 03:09:17 PM »
Casca,

As LSD's resident smart guy, do you have any input on this question?

29
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR Question
« on: January 20, 2005, 01:53:29 PM »
I don't think you need a diagram.  It definitely tests formal logic. "Most" means 1-99, so the first sentence, hypothetically, can say that 99 people out of 100 gains weight from antidepresents.  The second statement says that dieting can negate this relationship but "some" or "at least 1" must always gain weight.

So even if 98 people can use antidepresents and not gain weight, the second sentence assures that at least one must always gain weight no matter what. Hence choice C for the MBT question.

Call me crazy, but I think "unlikely" is the key.  "Some" refers to weight gain within an individual, so I'm just treating it as a non-formal logic "some" (if that's possible).

Some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable
Some weight gain is likely to be not-preventable
Some weight gain -M-> Not preventable

Deduction:  Some weight gain SOME Not preventable

30
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR Question
« on: January 20, 2005, 01:14:34 PM »
Thanks for your response.

The way I see it, "unlikely" modifies "some", so it's not an actual "some" yet.  I've got a feeling there's a formal logic chain we're supposed to be drawing, and then be able to make that deduction.

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