Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Ok, I've made another list  (Read 10713 times)

lle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2004, 11:31:16 PM »
Hey, I remember the scientist and the children one also.  Question type is sketchy to me, but I thought it was an assumption.

The experiment was on some well-known disease, and 2 out of 10 experiments failed.

CheezWiz

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2004, 11:33:42 PM »
I recall the argument saying something like after an author dies, his unpublished work and letters are often published by his heirs even though the quality of those unpublished works were often poor or not the same standard as his published works.  I think the conclusion went on to say unpublished work after the author dies should be best left unpublished.

I thought the question was a weaken type.

I couldn’t decide between

Often authors dislike work they have just finished but they later like it OR Many works publishes posthumously would have been published by the author if they had the time.

rosemaryblue

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #52 on: December 07, 2004, 11:35:11 PM »
The correct answer was that the authors are often too critical of their work  initially. The stem said that they should burn something they don't want published immediately after finishing it

Yup, that was what I got as well. Fit quite well. And yeah, fought between that and the pusthumously one. Pretty sure I went with the former..

rosemaryblue

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #53 on: December 07, 2004, 11:39:10 PM »
Hey, I remember the scientist and the children one also.  Question type is sketchy to me, but I thought it was an assumption.

The experiment was on some well-known disease, and 2 out of 10 experiments failed.

Yeah, I remember that one vaguely as well. Anyone with any answers? Or wrong answers even?  I remember something about long term effects not identified? Or am I imagining that?

lsatposter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • Northwestern '08
    • View Profile
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #54 on: December 07, 2004, 11:40:28 PM »
OK UPDATED LIST:

Monks
Fossils in lake
River, dioxin, fish
Lawnmower
Art, intrinstic/extrinsic
Employees fired by supervisor
Art, democratic gove
Comptuers, installation of accessories
Cig ads and fourth graders
Plant blames waste co for bad waste disposal
violent tv??
polished spears, caveman
meteor hits earth every 100,000 years
governor helps only rich, actually his policies sometimes help poor
"as they say" with ski trip, "what ends well"
uv rays and caveman
art works stolen, wealthy people want expensive ones
mice/rats bladder
happiness at work/personal relationships
supervisor, Larson, schedule
sentence is ubconclusion, (not phenomenon supported)
tuition not resolved with teacher salary increase
decentralizing large corps
parallel 9 year old tv thing
farms affect other industry
personal relationships need trust and affinity
jazz music not profitable

Municipalities adding new staff
DNA
Scientists/kids experiment
Econ/Consumption
Authors Post.
Attending: Northwestern School of Law

BM2004

  • Guest
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #55 on: December 07, 2004, 11:40:46 PM »
Do we know whether the author question is on a scored section?

I selected the choice that stated that most authors (or authors frequently) are initially too critical of their writings or drafts - so they shouldn't destroy their work because it may later be valuable or important even if they initially don't like it ... something along those lines.

thytsun

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2004, 11:41:04 PM »
There was also an argument about explaining how banks in Scotland doubled their business with England within some period after certain policies were passed.  Two of the answer choices include "building new roads between Scotland and England" and "efficiency of paper money."  The question type was "which of the following does the least to explain" type.

I didn't have confidence in my answer for this one although I breezed right through it.

no no that's from the JUNE 04 preptest! i distinctly remember getting that wrong and reading about the explanation

also the consumption/ baby boomer question is NOT an experimental. i had a games experimental section and i recall that question

CheezWiz

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #57 on: December 07, 2004, 11:44:34 PM »
Was the child research one the HGH (Human Growth Hormone) one?

I flip flopped between the long term effect of HGH on children have not been proven

and

The research is not being done on an actual disease but rather a possible treatment for several diseases.

lle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #58 on: December 07, 2004, 11:47:50 PM »
I also posted on the other long thread about the last main point question.  It was on the 3rd LR section and on the last page.  I was almost sure it was the last question altogther.

There was a premise about government.  Followed by a subconclusion beginning with "however."  And then a list of policies.  The list of policies might have started with "thus."  After reading those policies, there was no way I was going to understand what they were saying.  I felt like a 7 year-old kid learning quantum physics.

The reason I recall this is because it was the last question I did and I was looking for a main conclusion in the middle, but the conclusion was at the end, which surprised me for a main topic question, and I had to double check.

BM2004

  • Guest
Re: Ok, I've made another list
« Reply #59 on: December 07, 2004, 11:49:19 PM »
Yes the HGH experiment - and I think it was to Weaken the scientists argument about the subjects (children) definitely not being hurt by the experiment.  I think the answer was something along the lines of the long-term effects of HGH are not well known.