Law School Discussion

Anyone that remembers lr problems they had problems with- let's have them!!

BIG H2001

For the economists one, I'm pretty sure it's appealing to authority without justification. There's one like that on almost every test, and it fits well there.

Like my brother, the finance major, who has a $1500 credit card bill and $80 in his bank account.


What answer choice was that?



I am pretty sure that the economists questions was that their employees may have chosen their health plan for them. When I was reading the setup, before I even got to the question, I remember thinking, just because these economists have this health plan doesn't mean they chose it or approve it. Maybe this company gives a free health plan to every economist who wins a prize and then they go tell everyone that economists use their health plan.

The authority answer was not the answer because economists are a good authority on the matter being discussed.

superior- it would make me really happy if you are right.  i just pmed casa (she seemed to be the person online right now with the highest practice scores) to ask what she thought.

Words.  I specifically was going down and being like, "Well, unless it's something better it's the appeal to authority one" but then there was.  Yay! Yay for being drunk on cheap champagne after the end of the screwiest LSAT!

I have another LR question:

Anyone remember the one about opposition parties that rise to power but then splinter into disagreements once they are victorious?
We had to complete the sentence logically -- was it (B) that they must find a way to patch up their differences if they are to retain power, or (C) that they may not promulgate a new ideology to justify their policies once they are victorious???


Was that the one where one of the answers said there would likely be opposition to the new party in power?

ok you all are confusing two questions --- the one about the economists and the ACME insurance the answer is nto appealing to authority it is that they didn't necesaarily choose the insurance. the stimulus say they got the plan as part of the prize yet the AD also states that therefore the economists must "RECOGNIZE" its the best plan for them....the obvious flaw is if theyre getting it as part of a prize they therefore dont recognize *&^% except that getting things for free is nice...

as for the european union...was the answer c? number 26?

and what about frank loyd write!? did he innovate or popularize modernism!?

The answer was "have to resolve differences to remain in power" yeah.

calibos11

I have another LR question:

Anyone remember the one about opposition parties that rise to power but then splinter into disagreements once they are victorious?
We had to complete the sentence logically -- was it (B) that they must find a way to patch up their differences if they are to retain power, or (C) that they may not promulgate a new ideology to justify their policies once they are victorious???


Yea--it was B for that one...

ghostpirate said:
<<The answer was "have to resolve differences to remain in power" yeah.  >>

I was sorely tempted by that choice, but I don't think the passage actually suggested that they would have to unite to retain power.  Isn't it conceivable that a fragmented party could still maintain power if they're really that much better than the previous regime?

superiorlobe

The answer was "have to resolve differences to remain in power" yeah.


I disagree.  I chose the one about they will have difficulty justifying their policies.

Rizz98

  • ****
  • 218
  • 3.91/165
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rizz98
    • View Profile
    • Email
My beef with the employers pick the health plan choice was that they didn't all necessarily have the same employer. All of these economists were successful and had won the same distinctive award. I can't remember now how explicit the argument was in saying that "since these people are successful and it works for them, you should pick it," but I think there was something along those lines.