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 - 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, 08:59:06 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.

32
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 08:52:20 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.

33
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 08:39:16 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.

34
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 08:27:49 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."

35
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 06:22:21 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.

36
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Podcast online for 02/06!!! Look here.
« on: February 05, 2006, 05:12:21 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?

37
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 04:04:43 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.

38
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Post Mortem Args Master list
« on: February 05, 2006, 03:59:55 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!

39
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Interesting Fact About the February LSAT
« on: February 05, 2006, 03:59:17 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.

40
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Horrible SEAT neighbor
« on: February 05, 2006, 03:57:49 PM »
Thankfully we didn't have this problem.  The proctors we had were really nice.  They even let us leave the room to put our cell phones back in our cars.  Apparently, cell phones were not even allowed in the building, much less the room.

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