Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT  (Read 9233 times)

calguy815

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • NYU '07
    • AOL Instant Messenger - calguy815
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2004, 04:39:29 PM »
Oooo... let me guess too.

I'd say more like 3LG, 2RC, 2LR.

Come on, he keeps mentioning the round table game.  I bet that's where the points went.  ;D

nathanielmark

  • Guest
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2004, 04:40:51 PM »
thats right. i forgot about the round table. given that (and the 3 points that were mentioned, i would change my prediction to.

4LG 1RC 2LR

zpops

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Going to NYU in the fall! 3.99/175
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zp0ps
    • View Profile
    • The Digital Rant
    • Email
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2004, 04:55:45 PM »
I like this guessing game, but nathan cheated, since I already sent him the breakdown  :P

I got 2 LR wrong (1 / section)
1 RC wrong
4 LG wrong (3 were in the round table game)
www.thedigitalrant.com - A site for discussions on books, movies, video games and other forms of entertainment.  We're just starting out, so stop on by, if you have the chance.

seankenn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2004, 06:13:05 PM »
Here is how I see it.  The conditions of the experiment are a healthy dog who doesn't suffer for the sake of an exploratory experiment.

In A,C, and D the animal either suffers or is already unhealthy.

E the sole intention has to be to cause harm which is not true.

So B, is true because its states the only justifiable reason is if it saves lives, which in this experiment it doesn't. So this is the principle used.

This is how I broke it down, if anyone sees it differently let me know.

Meltdown

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2004, 07:13:21 PM »
So B, is true because its states the only justifiable reason is if it saves lives, which in this experiment it doesn't. So this is the principle used.

Exactly. B says that if taking the life of an animal is justifiable, then immediate assistance nust be given to saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person. That doesn't happen, so the decision is not justified. Each of the other answers can be definitively ruled out by some incorrect element (such as "gratuitous" in A).

I hate to be a contrarian, cvetok, but this question is perfectly reasonable and defensible (at least to me).




nathanielmark

  • Guest
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2004, 07:42:51 PM »
bah, i posted it right before i checked my messages!


I like this guessing game, but nathan cheated, since I already sent him the breakdown  :P

I got 2 LR wrong (1 / section)
1 RC wrong
4 LG wrong (3 were in the round table game)

zpops

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Going to NYU in the fall! 3.99/175
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zp0ps
    • View Profile
    • The Digital Rant
    • Email
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2004, 09:55:35 PM »
I agree after thinking it over that B certainly is the correct answer, and this answer is not as controversial as I originally thought. 

Here's my problem with this question.  In the actual question portion, it says, "most closely accords with".  I think that the questions should say, "best justifies" or "is most consistent with" since "accord" carries the connotation of intimate agreement.  I'd say that B is consistent with, but not intimately related to, the decision which the girl made.
www.thedigitalrant.com - A site for discussions on books, movies, video games and other forms of entertainment.  We're just starting out, so stop on by, if you have the chance.

zevkirsh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2004, 12:54:52 PM »
I looked at your lsat question and in about a minute or two I cam to choose B. This question is difficult but not extremely so, also, the answers are not that difficult to sort through.

Here was my analysis
first: what is the question?
"Mary's decision most closely accords with which one of the following principles:" OK, so then we naturally ask, what did she do?
Simply put: she refused to do an experiment in which "observing shock"
requires killing a dog. SIMPLY PUT that is all that is said.
(note: the dog does not regain conciousness...therefore it might not feel pain---but you cannot be expected to know this)

I think people getting confused here are over analyzing things!

ok......so she will not kill an animal for the purpose of....observing shock. well.....what does it mean to observe shock?
I DON"T KNOW....therefore observing shock is just that, nothing more.
It is not, saving lives or anything else.


STAGE 2 analyzing the answers!

A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified
('pain' is never mentioned, possibly the dog feels none (it's unconscious) and so this principle is not necceserily forcing her to refrain from the experiment)

B) Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person.
(sounds ok ---possible----observation is not saving lives or protecting lives: it is observation)
C)The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.
(definitely not-this is over the top and says too much, this principle could guide her actions but, what if this experiment helped frevent future animal suffering  we don't know-------THIS is crossed out!)

D) Practicing veterinarians have a prof. obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal whose prospects for recovery are dim.
( same as C ------even moreso what the hell does 'preventing' have to do with not experimenting on a dog.)

E)No one is ever justified in acting with the sole intention of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human.
(This is also over the top, albiet......her decision would conform to this principle, but this principle is so expansive that you would look for
one that more closely conforms to her situation. This is a blanket principle that is too generalized----the quetsion asks for the principle to which
mary's decision 'most closely accords' : this means that the correct principle should not be the more general of two possible principles.


SO...............it;'s A or B....... now, since B is very specific as it reads "Immediately assist in saving the lives....protecting health"
and we know that this experiment is an observation which clearly is not providing any 'immediate assistance" B is the better choice.
Mary is refraining from taking the life of an animal in an experiment which will not provide immidiate assistance.

zev
I hope this helped
p.s. 177, waitlisted to columbia, in at uva, waiting on NYU

M2

  • Guest
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2004, 10:20:22 PM »
ok I swear this one has an error in it...but it probably doesnt...lol

This summer Jennifer who has worked at KVZ Manufacturing for just over three years plans to spend with her family the enture four weeks of paid vacation to which she is entitled this year. Anyone who has worked at KVZ Manufacturing for between one and four years is automatically entitled to exactly 3 weeks paid vacation each year but can apply up to half of any vacation time that remains unused at the end of one year to the next year's vacation.

If the statements above are all true, which oen of the following must also be true on the basis of them.


(A) Jennifer did not use two weeks of paid vacation time to which she was entitled to last year
(B) If jennifer continues to work for KVZ Manufacturing, she will only be entitled to three weeks paid vacation next year
(C) The Majority of KVZ's employees use each year all the paid vacation time to which they are entitled
(D) Last year Jennifer took only one week of paid vacation time to which she was entitled
(E) KVZ Manufacturing sometimes allows extra vacation time to employees who need to spend more time with their families.



Whoo...that was a lot of typing...ok lets see if any of you come across the same thing i need...

Sooo what do you think the right answer is?

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: Confusing questions from prep. LSAT
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2004, 10:39:47 PM »
I coutht the misspellings, but are you sure the numbers are right?  Exactly 3 weeks?