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 
« on: June 11, 2005, 11:00:52 PM »
The stimulus said that she probably worked with movire stars, since most filmakers do. Never assumed she had to.
Did it? I seem to remember it saying "must have" worked with stars. Anyone have a clear recollection of the language?
Thought it was "Since this person is a successful director, she must
have worked with famous actors"
« on: June 11, 2005, 10:52:11 PM »
Heres my reasoning on the documentary question:
The stimulus said that most filmakers meet with famous people. The guy concluded that girl must meet with famous people because she is a filmaker. Then the stimulus says that some filmakers make documentaries and those filmakers rarely(or never) meet with famous people. Then it says girl was a documentary filmmaker.
the two answers debated are : 1) Fails to consider relevant fact
2) Assumes that all filmakers meet with famous people.
the problem with 1 is that we don't know that he failed to consider that she is a documentary filmaker. If the stimulus points out that he knew she was a documentary filmaker then that may have been the answer, but we don't know whether he considered it or not. For him to make the generalization that since she is a filmmaker she must have met with famous people, then he would have HAD to assume that all filmmakers meet with famous people.
seemed simple to me.
That's how I saw it. It started out by stating his conclusion: Since this person is a successful director, then she must have worked with famous actors. The assumption that all successful film directors work with famous actors is necessary to make that conclusion valid. After seeing this I didn't even think that it mattered if he knew that she was a documentary film maker or not, the only way to disprove the reasoning would be to point out that assumption, which was done. The relevance of the documentary film director was used soley to point out how his assumption.
This question was pretty challenging to me.
« on: June 11, 2005, 10:09:33 PM »
bwv, jackpot, I remember this one. Some dude assume she worked with famous people but she really made documentaries. Answer: didn't consider the relevant facts...agree?
agreed. one of the other choices was "mistakenly assumes that all filmmakers work with famous actors." i almost picked it, but it didnt seem right. the answer was "failed to consider a certain relevant fact."
What was the relevant fact that he failed to consider? I looked at that answer choice and didn't see any relevant fact he failed to consider.
he failed to consider the fact that she's a DOCUMENTARY filmmaker, and they rarely work with celebrities.
I thought the assumption answer was a bit more correct, but I know I struggled between the two answers for a long while: The guy starts off by making the assumption that all famous film directors work with famous actors, and then the other person points out this assumption (I believe the answer asked .. so-and-so disproves ther conclusion by ..)
At the same time, the guy did fail to take into account that she was a documentary film director, but maybe that just points to his assumption that all famous film direcors have worked with famous actors, which is then disproved.
I know he made that assumption, which was wrong, and he also failed to take the info into account .. other thoughts on this one?
« on: June 09, 2005, 04:36:31 PM »
Being fairly unacquainted with the cancelling consequences, could someone let me know how law schools look at a cancelled score? I'm taking only about 1 cancel only...not multiples.
I'm close to pulling the trigger to cancel my score...Like many around here I figure 10 wrong on LR, messed up legal RC, perfect LG...I wanted a 165...looks like ancient history now.
Historically, 16 wrong is in the 165 range. Something to think about..
« on: June 09, 2005, 04:23:43 PM »
I think the legal passage is skewing my opinion of the whole section. The first three were fine, the last (for me) was brutal.
« on: June 07, 2005, 06:25:46 PM »
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.
« on: June 07, 2005, 06:07:53 PM »
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.
« on: June 06, 2005, 09:42:23 PM »
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.
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.
« on: June 06, 2005, 09:37:35 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