Law School Discussion

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

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!?


no one has given a different opinion for the politicans being good campaigners one, so i would say there is a consensus.  the economist question i think you are refering to is being discussed if you read back through this thread.

superiorlobe

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.

First of all, there is no coup.  Second, why do they have to resolve their differences to remain in power? Why can't they just be in power and disagree about everything?

Because once they are in power, if people disagree with them there could be another coup.  TO avoid getting thrown out of power they would have to resolve the differences.

Coup is the wrong word perhaps - in the next election they will lose power to a coalition of the former majority plus whatever dissatisfied members of the insurgent coalition are around.

Because once they are in power, if people disagree with them there could be another coup.  TO avoid getting thrown out of power they would have to resolve the differences.

But the point wasn't that "people" will disagree with them, it was that *they* disagree amongst themselves.  
I know that historically speaking, it might be true that parties with a lot of internal factionalism tend to lose power, but there was no support for that in the passage itself.

There was support in the passage itself - the whole deal was about how they set aside their internal differences against a common foe.  Retaining power in the context of a democracy likely refers to the coming elections in several years rather than a violent power-grab.

superiorlobe

Justifying their policies shouldn't be a problem for them any more than anyone else.

Sure it will. They disagree about everything.  How is the party supposed to put forward a coherent justification for their policies if the only thing they agree on is that they wanted to boot the incumbents from power?

Also, the stimulus never suggests that not agreeing about policy means that you can't hold on to power.

Justifying their policies shouldn't be a problem for them any more than anyone else.

Sure it will. They disagree about everything.  How is the party supposed to put forward a coherent justification for their policies if the only thing they agree on is that they wanted to boot the incumbents from power?

Also, the stimulus never suggests that not agreeing about policy means that you can't hold on to power.

Yeah, superiorlobe, it sounds like your reasoning on that question was identical to mine...

The party doesn't have to agree about a policy or its justification once it gains power necessarily.  The dominant faction in the party can implement the policy and justify it according to their own potentially valid reason.  I can't imagine a fractious party being able to successfully implement policy yet be unable to justify said policy in some way; that would mean that somehow no winning sub-faction exists, just everybody loses in the new policy debate.

calibos11

no one has given a different opinion for the politicans being good campaigners one, so i would say there is a consensus.  the economist question i think you are refering to is being discussed if you read back through this thread.

I see questions about the question...but I havent been able to ID what the LSAT was even asking about economists/pension.   I remember pre-paid legal plans for union workers on the RC...But no pension plans from LR.  WTF!?