Law School Discussion

Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.

Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« on: October 04, 2004, 06:54:20 AM »
Does anyone remember how they answered the LR question about the physiological explanation of dreams and the Freudian interpretation? I think I chose something about the dreamer's characteristics over the one about neither explanation completes the study of dreams.

Anyone, anyone?

LSATGuru

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2004, 07:01:53 AM »
 It was something like "Some believe that all dreams can be explained by chemical reactions in the brain, excluding Freud's theory, but Freud's theory accounts for the diversity of peoples' dreams whereas the chemical reaction theory doesn't.

and I think it was a "which one of the following must be true?" and because of that I am pretty sure I chose that "neither theory fully explains dreams" because I know for sure that one doesn't, but I have no real clue--that was a tough LR question.

Does anyone remember how they answered the LR question about the physiological explanation of dreams and the Freudian interpretation? I think I chose something about the dreamer's characteristics over the one about neither explanation completes the study of dreams.

Anyone, anyone?

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2004, 07:07:28 AM »
I was torn betweent your answer and the one directly before it. I ended up with the latter, which I thought made a lot of sense at the time.  ???

LSATGuru

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2004, 07:13:17 AM »
Don't sweat that LR question, it was really tough.  You're not going to get every answer right, I remember struggling on that question but I didn't let it eat me up, I just chose what looked best and moved on.

I was torn betweent your answer and the one directly before it. I ended up with the latter, which I thought made a lot of sense at the time.  ???

Trancer

  • ****
  • 1133
  • Conan the Republican!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2004, 08:05:09 AM »
I put both theories couldnt explain dreams fully as well.

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2004, 08:19:47 AM »
me too.

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2004, 04:24:31 PM »
I know we'll hear soon enough, but man, I'd really appreciate it if anyone could remember this question and what they answered. 

It seemed to me that the passage itself was flawed.  It said something like "Scientists believe they can isolate the neurological factors that cause dreaming, going against Freud.  However, this doesn't account for the diverse range of dream content reported."  I didn't think the passage's conclusion followed, because it assumed that the variety of dreams existent couldn't be produced by the neurological elements the scientists describe.

Since the question was not an assumption question, I was pretty dissatisfied.  Why would we have to conclude that neither theory fully explained the phenomenom of dreaming?  Alternately, why must we conclude that the dreamer's charateristics influence their dreams?  I'm not sure if those were the answer choices; I'm still baffled.

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2004, 06:12:27 PM »
I chose the one about neither fully explaining; it took a leap of faith to assume Freud's interpretation couldn't (if only because nothing in the argument said his couldn't), but the whole point of the passage seemed to be about neurologists thinking they could explain dreams, with the argument being they couldn't. 

Does anyone remember the characteristics of the dreamer choice (close to) verbatim?

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2004, 07:20:03 PM »
labyrinths, I felt the same way.  I picked the same as everybody else, but I remember thinking that I got it wrong because I didnt fully understand it.  I thought it was just me and I was missing something, but I guess the argument or structure of the argument was in some way convoluted.

Re: Oct 2004 LR question about dream, Freud, etc.
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2004, 08:46:06 PM »
Wasn't there an answer that specifically mentioned Freud?  "Gives support to Freud's theory" or something.  I remember thinking that the argument did argue against the physicalists, but that diverse dream content didn't exactly lend support to Freud either.  Did it actually say anything about Freud except in the negative?