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 - vsavatar

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
21
Studying for the LSAT / Re: testing
« on: February 07, 2006, 08:26:24 PM »
1,2,3...

22
My favorite, "Don't blow it, this is the most important test of your life."

23
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Well...I'm 90% sure I'm keeping my score
« on: February 06, 2006, 10:04:48 PM »
I wonder if the fact that it took me 7 years to complete my degree because I was working full time will reflect badly on my application.  I mean, the chair of the econ department who wrote one of my LoRs said I was the top student in the economics department (he swears he wasn't lying either.  That makes me feel good.)  I just hope they don't think I was trying to take it easy on myself.  It's the only way I could do it though.

24
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Well...I'm 90% sure I'm keeping my score
« on: February 06, 2006, 09:16:41 PM »
Same here.  Since I've already submitted apps, it would be stupid to cancel now anyway.

25
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master List (9 MORE TO GO!!)
« on: February 05, 2006, 11:08:21 PM »
First, I agree with the new consensus that the answer for the milk production question is wrong.  Thanks to aliciachen for pointing out our error.  I think I was the one that originally threw that answer out, so sorry to everybody for that.

Second, I do not think #10 on the master list was on the real test.  It must be experimental.

Third, we can definitely add the new question concerning email and mail.  I think it went something like this:

Q:  A survey asked people whether they found email to be useful.  The majority of those who responded by snail mail said no.  The majority that responded by email said yes. This situation conforms to what principle?

A:  People are more likely to find something useful if they use it regularly.


That's it!

26
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master List (9 MORE TO GO!!)
« on: February 05, 2006, 11:07:36 PM »
I agree, I think at this point most of us agree that the answer on the Master List is not entirely true, and most likely inaccurate.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, in my infinite wisdom, I have just thought of another question that I am 100% positive was on the LR section. Let me reiterate - I did NOT have an experimental LR, so this is a fact:

The question had something to do with a magazine survey, and people responding to the survey via email or postcard or something, and the question had something to do with an inference from that data or something. I can never remember answers until people start spitting them out, so let's get cracking on this.  I'm really impressed with myself here for remembering these.
If you mean the survey on technology where some people were asked if they thought email was useful and the ones who wrote in via postal mail said no, while the ones who wrote in through email said yes.  It was a principle question I believe and the answer was, "People find value in technology they use" or something like that.

27
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master List (9 MORE TO GO!!)
« on: February 05, 2006, 10:13:51 PM »
Also, the one with milk production. I have a slight issue with this one as well.

The reasoning seemed to be something along the lines of:  Farmers who want to increase production in their most productive cows should increase their feed intake.  This serves to decrease the percentage of energy used for maintenance of bodily functions (whatever the hell that means) and increase the amount of total energy available for milk production.

The main point is that farmers will produce more milk if they up their most productive cows' feed intake.  Why?  Because there will be more energy available for milk production.

The answer I chose identified the logical gap:  Even if there is more energy available, who's to say that the additional increase in energy will go toward milk production?  The answer said this more or less: "The same percentage of energy available will be used for milk production"

Am I way off?  Please let me know! 
I agree with your answer here.

28
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 06:59:06 PM »

What is the premise that supports "Hot water sits in a heating tank?"

Stagnant water loses oxygen supports the idea that hot water that sits in a heating tank loses oxygen, which leads to the conclusion that cold water is better than hot water for cooking.

The question was not about the function of the statement "Hot water that sits in a heating tank loses oxygen."  The question concerned the statement "Hot water sits in a heating tank."  There is no premise in the stimulus that supports that...it wouldn't even be necessary.

Did the question asked what premise did that phrase support or what the overall phrase's function is? Because I think the phrase definitely supported a premise of the overall argument - the next sentence which said, water that sits longer loses the most oxygen. There were at least two premises, and then the subsidiary conclusion, water with more oxygen tastes better (or something like that) and then the main conclusion.

Actually water that sits longer would support the idea that hot water sits in a heating tank all day has less oxygen, which directly supports the main conclusion.  In any case, I'm giving up on this one.  We'll never know the answer, which is kind of sad because I really would have liked to see who was right about this one.  I have accounting homework to do.  Although, truthfully, arguing about this is much more fun.

29
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 06:52:20 PM »

What is the premise that supports "Hot water sits in a heating tank?"

Stagnant water loses oxygen supports the idea that hot water that sits in a heating tank loses oxygen, which leads to the conclusion that cold water is better than hot water for cooking.

The question was not about the function of the statement "hot water that sits in a heating tank loses oxygen."  The question was concerned the statement "hot water sits in a heating tank."  There is no premise in the stimulus that supports that...it wouldn't even be necessary.
That's where I think we're disagreeing.  I took the entire sentence including "hot water sits in a heating tank".  You took, only those words.  Actually, it does serve a purpose.  If you introduce the idea that stagnant water loses oxygen, then an example hot water sitting in a heating tank.  The fact that stagnant water loses oxygen implies that hot water in a heating tank will lose oxygen which implies that cold water is better than hot water for cooking.  See the stagnant water statement supports the claim that the water in a heating tank will lose oxygen.  The hot water in the heating tank does not imply that the stagnant water will lose oxygen.  By the way, I'm sure we're getting screwed up on the wording of the question here because there were some very exact words involved with that question and if you miss even one of them that screws up the whole thing.  I actually don't think the word stagnant ever appeared anywhere in the stimulus.  If it didn't, then this whole thing gets turned around.

30
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 06:39:16 PM »

I disagree that hot water losing oxygen is a subsidiary conclusion. I believe it was simply a premise.  Thus my answer was then and I still believe it now to be "It supports the main conclusion and is itself supported by another premise."

What is the premise that supports "Hot water sits in a heating tank?"
[/quote]
Stagnant water loses oxygen supports the idea that hot water that sits in a heating tank loses oxygen, which leads to the conclusion that cold water is better than hot water for cooking.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13