Law School Discussion

You don't have a chance at any of them unless you invented something, were in the Olympics, started a business, or are/related to someone rich or famous.

I don't know why I've allowed you nuts to almost convince me to stay up until midnight.  I took the Oct. 04 test, and I did this last time, and randomly, even though I was on the east coast, I did not receive my score when many people on lsd.org did.  Servers are set for random times, perhaps test centers, or test forms, or something, but not everyone gets it at the same moment.  Second, I waited and waited and refreshed and refreshed and finally gave up on it at like 11 pm when I decided to go out and celebrate my birthday.  When I returned at 3 am, I found out that my lovely scores were released at 11:57 (THE DAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SENT OUT).  In other words, I'm going to try EXTREMELY hard to stay away from you guys and lsac.org before I get myself an ulcer ANOTHER knot in my neck.  I reccommend to all of you do the same.  There's no telling when tomorrow we'll get them!

Good luck though.  I hope our obvious passion means something in our upcoming lawschool admissions cycle.

At first glance, this question appears to be a mappable parallel question.  However, to get to the answer for this question, you do not proceed in the same manner you would through a mappable parallel question as this is a specific type of one of those questions called an "identify the flaw" question.

To proceed, mapping is generally helpful, and with this question it will help you get your mind around what the stimulus is saying.  The stimulus says Some tenured professors are not full time professors.  It then says that all linguistics professors are tenured, therefore some are not full time.  Obviously, there's a huuuuge flaw there!  Before you go onto the answer choices, identify the flaw and it may even be helpful to articulate the flaw with a few words beside the stimulus.  When I did this practice exam, I remember thinking to myself, "What if all the linguistics professors are tenured and full time and all history professors are tenured but not full time, then it would be true that some tenured are not tenured and full time.  Now our task is to find which answer choice exhibits the same flaw.  The flaw is basically trying to say, that what is true about the whole is true about the parts.  A very bad bad flaw.  Let's go through the answer choices now.

A. If it's a modern office towers then it's climate controlled.  Not all office buildings are climate controlled. Therefore, not all office buildings are modern towers.
----this is a true statement, and therefore not the correct answer

B.  If municipal hospital then it's massive.  If municipal hosp, then not necessarily forbidding.  Therefore massive buildings need not be massive.
----again, this is a true statement, and thefore not the correct choice.

C.  Some buildings designed by fam architects are not well proportioned (read: if it's a building designed by a fam. architect it's not necessarily well proportioned).  If gov't building, then designed by a famous architect.  Therefore, some gov't bldgs are not well proportioned.  This exhibits the same flaw.  Say all gov't bldgs are designed by famous architects and they all are well proportioned, but some houses are also designed by famous architects and a bunch of those houses or all of those houses are poorly proportioned, then some buildings designed by famous architects might not be well proportioned but all gov't bldgs are still well proportioned.  Again the flaw is, what is true for the whole, is not necessarily true for each of its parts.

If you need help figuring out why D and E are wrong, let me know.  However, I think you should be able to map them and figure out why the do not exhibit the flaw in question.  The credited response is C.

YOU SUCK!-- wait, does that make me the anal retentive type?

Look, the tortoise one is a no-brainer.  The CR is that the shell/bone was being eaten.  Here's why:  in any paradox question, you MUST answer all of the paradox.  The question was indicating the paradox of why would this generally docile non-fleshing animal be eating a tortoise!?  You have to resolve why does it appear that this deer is eating flesh.  The answer about eating the shell indicates nothing about the deer killing the tortoise, which leads one to believe, perhaps it was already dead and the deer came upon this dead tortoise.

It also indicates that the deer is not in fact eating flesh, it's merely eating the shell.  Though it doesn't really matter, the shell could be composed of matter somewhat like trees/vegetation if you need to resolve that oddity in your mind.   Regardless no one would consider flesh and shell the same thing.  The bone/shell response answers any potential question the stimulus creates, thus resolving the paradox.... darnit... let's drop this question!