Law School Discussion

explain this one

explain this one
« on: February 15, 2005, 06:41:02 PM »
) Parallel reasoning - not the chemical companies fault that there are chemical in the ground - answer: parents not taking accountability for children in school

Which one was this... what was the full question, and what section was it on???? was this on the first section... was it pretty obvious.... cause the children answer doesnt ring, and I tend to do really well on the arguments (1-2 wrong)
thanks,
Adam

Emolee

  • ****
  • 390
  • I believe there is a distance I have wandered
    • View Profile
Re: explain this one
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2005, 06:47:28 PM »
answer was?

withj

Re: explain this one
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2005, 07:17:24 PM »
This sounds familiar, but from the 12/04 test. There was one that sounded just like that in Dec.

Re: explain this one
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2005, 07:33:00 PM »
This question doesn't ring a bell at all for me.  I really need to stop looking at this board; I'm just freaking myself out.

duderbrain

Re: explain this one
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2005, 08:18:26 PM »
coolestb, your membory is fading brother-that chemical one was from december. I think you can rest easy that if it hasn't been remembered by at least one of us on here then it didn't leave an impression (ie it was easy).

Re: explain this one
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2005, 08:58:38 PM »
) Parallel reasoning - not the chemical companies fault that there are chemical in the ground - answer: parents not taking accountability for children in school

Which one was this... what was the full question, and what section was it on???? was this on the first section... was it pretty obvious.... cause the children answer doesnt ring, and I tend to do really well on the arguments (1-2 wrong)
thanks,
Adam

I remember this one now. Yes, I picked teachers/schools. I am bad a par. I usually don't do them, but for some reason I did this time. So don't use my answer as an indication.

duderbrain

Re: explain this one
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2005, 09:13:02 PM »
*&^%, what freaking number/section was this?

Check the second LR set from Dec.
Question #2 sounds almost identical to what you're talking about...