Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: master list of arguments!  (Read 1287 times)

Happy_Weasel

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
  • Me and Gir, the happy weasel.
    • MSN Messenger - ominusdemon2@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2005, 04:38:45 PM »
I put everything here except french wine society and

zenbiddie

  • Guest
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2005, 05:02:26 PM »
 :D  for 16/17 about the mosquitos...the answer had something to do with the guy dispelling the natives belief that malaria was caused by mosquitos because people got sick whenever lots of mosquitos were around so he rejected that theory because the natives logic was dependent on two simulaneous events.  sthg like that... ;)

that list is awesome.  i love this board!!  :-*

zenbiddie

  • Guest
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2005, 05:13:04 PM »
oh yea, 28 about big rats having better cardio health.  all are correct EXCEPT...and it listed stuff like big rats dont get stressed and little rats have smaller veins...but i cant remember which one didnt belong.  can anyone remember this?? ???

zenbiddie

  • Guest
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2005, 05:18:13 PM »
on 23 did anyone put sales contest??

interface76

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2005, 07:30:22 PM »
regarding the soybeans one...was the answer C...i guessed on that one...and i just want to know if my shot in the dark hit the target ..1/5 chances right...:)

Emolee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • I believe there is a distance I have wandered
    • View Profile
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2005, 07:35:52 PM »
what did people put for the following:

rats/big/small/heart disease

soybeans/parallel

wages for jobs/supply/demand

blue cars

ancient philosophy today

thx
wrestling over tiny matters: UCLA vs. Columbia

LSAT 173!  Thank you, God!

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=emolee

lsattaker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2005, 11:18:12 AM »
I am only able to remember key words to the answers at this point.

what did people put for the following:

rats/big/small/heart disease

Someone died earlier or nonheart related diseases

soybeans/parallel

wages for jobs/supply/demand

something about driving demand

blue cars

more people drive blue cars.

ancient philosophy today

This was an agree/disagree question. First person said that much of philosophy today was dealing with esoteric problems that ancient philosphy had already solved. Therefore modern philo. would not contribute to the betterment of society. Speaker 2 said someething like "yeah, but many matters that couldn't be understood by many people have yielded important results." Can't remember what I put.


yoshibengoshi

  • Guest
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2005, 11:26:16 AM »
RE: Ancient philosophy

I believe the question was "the speakers are committed to disagree about which of the following?"
I chose an answer something along the lines of "modern philosophy is worthwhile."

lsattaker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2005, 11:31:56 AM »
"modern philosophy is worthwhile."

That rings a bell. I am about 50 percent sure I picked something like that.

metropolitans

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: master list of arguments!
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2005, 01:24:16 PM »
"modern philosophy is worthwhile."

That rings a bell. I am about 50 percent sure I picked something like that.

yet again i agree, i think that is the answer.  The stim talked about how modern philo was a rip off of past philo.

Can anyone give more details on soybeans? wages for jobs is the answer....how did it go again and what was the argument structure for soybeans?