Law School Discussion

LR sections

Re: LR section
« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2004, 03:53:21 PM »
Anyone remember the LR question about computers?  It was something about how it is difficult to add accessories due to the complexity of setting the jumpers and switches.  It was a weaken question i think.

I narrowed the choices to (1) the manuals supplied by the mfg give instructions re the jumper settings, or (2) computers already come with the accessories and offer free installation.

agree with matt.
for sur 100% abt this one

Matthew_24_24

  • ****
  • 631
  • Sigh
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR section
« Reply #91 on: December 04, 2004, 03:54:16 PM »
They were disagreeing about whether or not a democractic gov't that gives funding produces bad art.  It was an easy question.

Matt

Re: LR section
« Reply #92 on: December 04, 2004, 03:55:16 PM »
Yes this is the answer to the point of issue question though I dont remember how it was exactly phrased.

vmersich

Re: LR section
« Reply #93 on: December 04, 2004, 03:58:02 PM »
At first I was really annoyed with seeing (on this thread) that the first LR wasn't experimental.  But if everyone thought it was rough, then the scale should reflect that, right?

Re: LR section
« Reply #94 on: December 04, 2004, 03:59:39 PM »
but wasn't that the point they disagreed about, b/c the one guy said ALL govt's don't benefit artists, but the girl said in democratic govt's they encourage artists to speak against the govt, and so thats the piont they disagreed about.  they didn't disagree whether govt was made up of society's values.  the democratic govt has the values of questioning the govt or something.

tell me if i'm off.

your right. the answer that i thought i chose wasn't that one. memory distortion.... are you sure the first dude said "all" governments? i distinctly remmeber concluding that that Answer choice was a trap tho, the one ur supporting

jmr47

Re: LR section
« Reply #95 on: December 04, 2004, 04:00:40 PM »
Anyone remember the answer for the the question that gave the claim that cigarette ads dont contribute to smoking because 4th graders know the brands and only 1% smoke, then asked you to pick the passage with the same faulty logic?

Trust + affinity + personal relationships = "friendships without affinity will not be long lasting"?

Re: LR section
« Reply #96 on: December 04, 2004, 04:00:51 PM »
children smoking cigs
plant blaming waste company
violent t.v. advertisements
polished spears cavemen
meteor hits earth 100,000 yrs/avg
governor helping only rich
arg-artistic value / govts
fish/stream dioxin
"as they say"
artists extrinsic value
natural resources govt global warming
uv rays cavemen ozone layer
students tuition
wealthy people/stealing artwork
mice bladder/rats bladder
lawnmower electric/gas
monks/aesthetics
fossils preserved land/sea
happiness at work/family personal relationships
growth of wheat/demand up/supply of land low
dem govts morality
computers installation
independent supervisor
larson scheduling conflict/aggressive..supervisor

Re: LR section
« Reply #97 on: December 04, 2004, 04:03:18 PM »
here's one that i thought was kinda tricky
it was one of those what role does the statemnet play... it was about wheat or some crop... conclusion was that there is going to be a food shortage...... because one wheat farms are operating at maximum efficiency (this was a premise for what i thought was a sub-conclusion ... i cant remember the short sentence) and two population growth.

it was either "subconclusion" or "a phenomenon, the casual argument of which is the conclusion" or something

Re: LR section
« Reply #98 on: December 04, 2004, 04:03:29 PM »
OK - the answer for the mice bladder is regenerate the cells or something like that - it was a discrepancy question.

twelvehundred

Re: LR section
« Reply #99 on: December 04, 2004, 04:05:08 PM »
OK - the answer for the mice bladder is regenerate the cells or something like that - it was a discrepancy question.

I dont think so.  The answer had something to do with another substance in the bladders causing the cancer when mixed with the saccharin.  The other rodent did not have that substance.