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 - squilla

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38]
I think the legal passage is skewing my opinion of the whole section. The first three were fine, the last (for me) was brutal.


All right - my takes on four in contention:

Babies/music - definitely the answer is that the babies had no previous exposure to music.  The researchers are trying to prove that preferences are innate (not learned), and therefore it is important to establish that the babies could not have learned their preferences in the 6 months they've been alive.  So what if adults have the same preferences - that could just mean that babies learn the preferences early and continue having them throughout their lives.

I believe the argument was that it was innate to "all humans."  the babies who have not been exposed response would work if the argument stated "all babies."  In order to strengthen the argument, though, you would need evidence from other humans in other age groups - evidence that shows they have the same tendencie for those intervals.  That was my reasoning, anyways.

what about that food tasting question:

starts with something like a principle:

if you don't like a food, you will like it, if alot of people like it, and you are influenced by them to like it, but you have get used to it, then you will like the food.

I think i choose the one about jalapeno pepper or something....cauz i think it addressed with alot of people like it, and getting used to.

another choice is some dude spend a summer with his ukranian uncles and likes to eat their food....but i don't think it addressed the "getting used to it" aspect.

I think the big part of this argument was that "if you are around people who ENJOY a certain food, you will learn to like it." The Ukrainian response clearly mentioned that they enjoyed a certain food, but the jalepeno peppers were only used a lot in the cooking.

Dumb question.  Can't believe it made me even look at it twice.  BUT,

Some legislators recently enacted a law limiting right to free expression.  It is said that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.  If that is true, then those legislators must be ignorant of history.  Because limits on the right to free expression TEND to accompany/precede more autocratic measures, governments.

Which of the following describes a flaw in argument?

a.) Ignores that some limits on certain rights may be needed to protect others.
b.) Something
c.) Something
d.) Something
e.) Ignores that some who are not ignorant of history may repeat it anyways.

What did you all get?  Conclusion was: If that is true, then those legislators must be ignorant of history (right?).  I had trouble getting past that statement, and chose E as such.

I actually had C .. history has shown that the opposite effect has occurred in the past (speech restrictions thwarting extremists), showing that these people are not ignorant of history at all.  Was pretty confident of it, but now after seeing all these E responses .. hmmm.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Please post: June 05 LSAT LR questions
« on: June 06, 2005, 06:37:35 PM »
yeah okay, i got that as well. shakespeare could have written love poetry but not drama

Can someone confirm the last question of the second LR section was C???

I had C for the very last answer, too.  The last few went a,b,c,d,e (hate when that happens!) and then followed by c.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38]