Law School Discussion

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

calibos11

katie yes i remember thsi question which answer did u put what was the parallel analogy --- the question was about experts not being the most knowedgable but still being the most persuasive...and one of the strong choices ws about politicians and being good campaigners versus good officials

I chose the one about politicians being good campaigners...is there a consenus on this one too?  

What was the economist/pension plan question? Anyone remember what is what specifically? I don't even remember that one!?

superiorlobe

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...

I chose the one about promulgating policies.

BIG H2001

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.

What answer choice was that?

superior-  i chose the that they would have to resolve their differences to remain in power.  i think the key words would be remain in power.  they could get in power by defeating the unpopular one, but to remain in power (since their policies were opposite of the people they defeated and the other groups that also wanted to defeat the original group) they would have to resolve their differences with the other groups.

Rizz98

  • ****
  • 218
  • 3.91/165
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rizz98
    • View Profile
    • Email
Don't remember the letter, but it was the appeal to authority one.

Justifying their policies shouldn't be a problem for them any more than anyone else.  Nowhere is it suggested that the rationale for any one of the opposition positions is questionable.  The only problem they have is that there are factions with their own reasons for being there.  Sure perhaps they will compromise and some of their policies will seem incongruous, but I couldn't find support for that particular answer in the text.

superiorlobe

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.

What answer choice was that?

The employer choice can still be the right answer even if they all have different employers.  Maybe 1000 different companies all force their employees to have this health plan.  And maybe the 25 economists work for some of these 1000 companies.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
yay for celebration[/glow][/color]

arc87

  • ****
  • 397
    • View Profile
    • ScenarioSolver
    • Email
superior-  i chose the that they would have to resolve their differences to remain in power.  i think the key words would be remain in power.  they could get in power by defeating the unpopular one, but to remain in power (since their policies were opposite of the people they defeated and the other groups that also wanted to defeat the original group) they would have to resolve their differences with the other groups.

KAtie,
I think I put that also.  I studied that topic last semester and that is in fact the reality of the situation

calibos11

They have to resolve their differences or else whichever one of the insurgents are in power after the coup will be subject, themselves, to another coup.

Can anyone clarify the economist/pension plan one? Can't seem to even remember the question.