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 9 ... 13
31
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 06:27:49 PM »
Q:  It is better to make coffee using cold water rather than hot.  Hot water sits in a heating tank.  Sitting water loses oxygen.  What was the purpose of stating that hot water sits in a heating tank?


Does anyone remember the exact wording of the correct answer? 

Supports the premise that hot water loses oxygen?  Sound familiar?


I was able to diagram this and came to the conclusion that the answer was that the statement supported the main conclusion, not the premise that stagnant water loses oxygen.  It wasn't there to show that stagnant water loses oxygen.  Water in a hot water heater is stagnant, stagnant water loses O2, which creates bad cooking water, therefore Water in a hot water heater implies bad cooking water.  The hot water heater is merely an example of stagnant water, it does not support the premise that hot water loses oxygen.

Premise:  Coffee tastes better when it is brewed with water that has more oxygen.

Premise:  Stagnant water loses oxygen.

Premise to support Subsid. Conclusion:  Hot water sits in a heating tank.

Subsidiary conclusion:  Hot water loses oxygen

Conclusion:  It is better to make coffee using cold water rather than hot.


That's my nifty diagram.  Make sense?




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."

32
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 04:22:21 PM »
Q:  It is better to make coffee using cold water rather than hot.  Hot water sits in a heating tank.  Sitting water loses oxygen.  What was the purpose of stating that hot water sits in a heating tank?


Does anyone remember the exact wording of the correct answer? 

Supports the premise that hot water loses oxygen?  Sound familiar?


I was able to diagram this and came to the conclusion that the answer was that the statement supported the main conclusion, not the premise that stagnant water loses oxygen.  It wasn't there to show that stagnant water loses oxygen.  Water in a hot water heater is stagnant, stagnant water loses O2, which creates bad cooking water, therefore Water in a hot water heater implies bad cooking water.  The hot water heater is merely an example of stagnant water, it does not support the premise that hot water loses oxygen.

33
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Podcast online for 02/06!!! Look here.
« on: February 05, 2006, 03:12:21 PM »
That's why we exist.  We reconstructed most of that test.  You think LSAC will come here and ever shut us down for this?

34
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 02:04:43 PM »
The more this goes on, the better, albeit only slightly better, I'm starting to feel about this test.  I mean it's definitely going to be below a 160, but I may be on track for that 158 at this rate.

35
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:59:55 PM »
I did NOT have an experimental LR section, I had an experiemtnal LG section, and I know for a fact that the poetry question counted. I won't be able to remember all the questions probably, but if I remember a question, it counted.
Cool!  Then we have another one to add to the master list.  Yay!  We're almost there!

36
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Interesting Fact About the February LSAT
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:59:17 PM »
One has to wonder if they ever receive death threats or people screaming outside their office windows holding an axe or something.  Being that there are all sorts of nuts in the world, you can bet something like that has happened at least once.

37
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:55:29 PM »
I just remembered another LR question.  I don't remember the specifics (kind of like I didn't remember the specifics of the rodent question, which ended up leading to debate), but it had something to do with Poetry and Novels, and how people in the 17th century have their own private writing rooms but aren't rich enough to afford the education necessary to learn techniques for poetry or something. I'm 100% sure this is a question.

If it's not experimental then it's a valid question. I had an exp. LR and I can't pinpoint the real-deal.

This is a good point. I had an experimental LR too, so we could be remembering things that were on the experimental section and just not knowing it.  I guess we'll never really know.

38
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:52:30 PM »
I just remembered another LR question.  I don't remember the specifics (kind of like I didn't remember the specifics of the rodent question, which ended up leading to debate), but it had something to do with Poetry and Novels, and how people in the 17th century have their own private writing rooms but aren't rich enough to afford the education necessary to learn techniques for poetry or something. I'm 100% sure this is a question.

OMG, thanks for remembering that. I thought that was a really hard question and I had to guess. It was a dialogue between two people. One person said that women in the 19th century wrote more novels than poetry because you need a private writing room to write poetry and many women didn't have that (or something like that). The other person said that it wasn't so much the writing room issue. It said that people who had writing rooms had money, and if you didn't have one it meant you didn't have too much money. Then it said that if you didn't have money you probably didn't have a formal education and a formal education was essential in order to write poetry. The question asked what would weaken the second person's argument and I remember none of the answer choices made sense.

The conclusion was that money was the cause for women writing more novels than poetry.  The premise was that men could afford to attend institutions to teach them the literary form necessary for writing poetry, but women could not afford this.  It was a weaken question, and I chose the answer that "institutions at the time did not admit women."  because that would mean the cause was something other than money.

39
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:37:40 PM »
At least add it to the master list and put it as debatable or something.  It still should be in there.

40
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:30:43 PM »
If the stimulus didn't mention the winter, how is it possible to conclude that the 'harsh winter' answer would weaken it?  It had to have been mentioned in the stimulus that rodents couldn't survive the winters

Again where does that leave us, because I did not hesitate to pick my answer.  What is your recollection of the stimulus as far as you can remember?

I'm confused, what is the debate about? I'm positive it was a weaken question. The question specifically asked what would weaken England's claim that it's plan eliminated 90% of the rodents. The answer said, the first year the plan went into effect there was an unusually harsh winter and the rodents were sensitive to the cold. Again, I'm positive this was the answer choice. The stimulus didn't mention the winter, it mainly concerned itself with England patting itself on the back due to eliminating the rodent.

Actually, the answer choice contained that.  The answer was something like, "There was an unusually harsh winter and the rodents would not normally survive the cold." or something to that effect.  I do remember both the not survive and the harsh winter both being in the answer choice.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13