Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Stone-Hard: Does anyone have a GOOD justification for the tortoise answer?  (Read 1224 times)

alx2042

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
    • Email
I'm going to second all those tortoise explanations. The basic problem with eliminating the tortoise answer is that you risk reading a little bit too closely to try to find fault with the tortoise answer. On the most fundamental level, the stone-hard part of the passage involved two elements (stone hard facts and bread), the tortoise involved two elements (slow like a tortoise, tortoise wins the race through tenacity), and the other answers all only involved one element. And while it may be true that the stone-hard comment was a metaphor and the only the rage/thunderstorm answer choice was a metaphor, this is certainly a deeper level than the basic "how many elements" analysis. Therefore, while rage/thunderstorm may be better on this deeper analysis, it fails on the more basic and surface level, and thus is a worse answer than tortoise.

Well, my opinion is that the tortoise actually conforms to a deeper analysis (meaning) and the raging t'storm conforms to a more superficial analysis (structure). But what do I know, I probably didn't even break 170.

I don't think I explained my position very well there. What I was trying to argue is that "rage/thunderstorm" doesn't even pass a perfunctory examination of paralleling stone-hard facts in the passage, and that arguing for metaphor vs. simile is more than LSAC intended us to think.
University of Virginia
UGPA: 4.08 adj., 3.99 non-adjusted
June 05 LSAT: 180

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=chinky2042

EvieO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Well, my opinion is that the tortoise actually conforms to a deeper analysis (meaning) and the raging t'storm conforms to a more superficial analysis (structure).  But what do I know, I probably didn't even break 170. 

OK, I'm going to make one more half-hearted attempt to lobby for my answer -- Job (which I'm really not convinced is right, anyway).  

Like you just said - the tortoise conforms to meaning, the t'storm conforms to structure - but the question actually asked, which one conforms to the same function, didn't it?  I specifically remember that word.  I also specifically remember that the passage tells us that the author used these Christian symbols to (functionally) critique the majority culture.  If cultural critique is the function, only Job could match that, because it is the only religious answer.  

I seriously considered the others, because Job seemed too easy, but it's so much of a stretch to liken stone/bread to either a tortoise or a thunderstorm.  I just took the easy way out, and I still think there's a chance that it was right.  I know that the similar content usually signals a sucker answer, but who's to say they're not just messing with us?

Just my 2 cents.

bobwil50

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
    • Email
Well, my opinion is that the tortoise actually conforms to a deeper analysis (meaning) and the raging t'storm conforms to a more superficial analysis (structure).  But what do I know, I probably didn't even break 170. 

OK, I'm going to make one more half-hearted attempt to lobby for my answer -- Job (which I'm really not convinced is right, anyway).  

Like you just said - the tortoise conforms to meaning, the t'storm conforms to structure - but the question actually asked, which one conforms to the same function, didn't it?  I specifically remember that word.  I also specifically remember that the passage tells us that the author used these Christian symbols to (functionally) critique the majority culture.  If cultural critique is the function, only Job could match that, because it is the only religious answer.  

I seriously considered the others, because Job seemed too easy, but it's so much of a stretch to liken stone/bread to either a tortoise or a thunderstorm.  I just took the easy way out, and I still think there's a chance that it was right.  I know that the similar content usually signals a sucker answer, but who's to say they're not just messing with us?

Just my 2 cents.

Haha, that'd be something.  LSAC has gotten wise to the fact that everyone recognizes the similar subject matter as a wrong answer and slips one in as a right answer to trick people that think they can "beat" the test.
LSAT: 168
GPA: 3.8

X3Maverick

  • Guest
X3Maverick:
Funny thing is, I haven't seen you give a correct justification for any question.  Getting a little nervous?

Ad hominem, 120.

John Galt

  • Guest
Well, my opinion is that the tortoise actually conforms to a deeper analysis (meaning) and the raging t'storm conforms to a more superficial analysis (structure).  But what do I know, I probably didn't even break 170. 

OK, I'm going to make one more half-hearted attempt to lobby for my answer -- Job (which I'm really not convinced is right, anyway).  

Like you just said - the tortoise conforms to meaning, the t'storm conforms to structure - but the question actually asked, which one conforms to the same function, didn't it?  I specifically remember that word.  I also specifically remember that the passage tells us that the author used these Christian symbols to (functionally) critique the majority culture.  If cultural critique is the function, only Job could match that, because it is the only religious answer.  

I seriously considered the others, because Job seemed too easy, but it's so much of a stretch to liken stone/bread to either a tortoise or a thunderstorm.  I just took the easy way out, and I still think there's a chance that it was right.  I know that the similar content usually signals a sucker answer, but who's to say they're not just messing with us?

Just my 2 cents.

What? Even if the word was function the  turtoise is the only one that fits. What exactly is Job a christian symbol of? Yes we know Job is story in christianity, but what symbol does he or his story represent? Moreover, if you look to your studies in parallel reasoning you will find that an answer choice need not be the same subject as the stimulus to parallel. Two christian themes don't mean they serve the same function. Finally, for JOB to be the right answer one would have to know the story of JOB to make the parallel b/c they didn't specify on the exam. 1) That kind of outside knowledge is irrelevant on the exam, and 2) not everyone taking the test is christian or familiar with it, so they wouldn't expect us to make that leap anyway.

X3Maverick

  • Guest
Does anyone remember the precise wordings of the question stem and the stone/bread part of the passage?

metropolitans

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
I think the question was one of those which of the following is most similar to the author's intended use of (insert phrase + line #) in the passage?

I also picked job which i've already written off and going with the masses here. However, I also think that the job answer choice specifically mentioned bible & job so one did not need outside christian knowledge regarding job.

ELB25

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Suitegrl81
    • View Profile
    • Email
Look, the tortoise one is a no-brainer.  The CR is that the shell/bone was being eaten.  Here's why:  in any paradox question, you MUST answer all of the paradox.  The question was indicating the paradox of why would this generally docile non-fleshing animal be eating a tortoise!?  You have to resolve why does it appear that this deer is eating flesh.  The answer about eating the shell indicates nothing about the deer killing the tortoise, which leads one to believe, perhaps it was already dead and the deer came upon this dead tortoise.

It also indicates that the deer is not in fact eating flesh, it's merely eating the shell.  Though it doesn't really matter, the shell could be composed of matter somewhat like trees/vegetation if you need to resolve that oddity in your mind.   Regardless no one would consider flesh and shell the same thing.  The bone/shell response answers any potential question the stimulus creates, thus resolving the paradox.... darnit... let's drop this question!

metropolitans

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Look, the tortoise one is a no-brainer. The CR is that the shell/bone was being eaten. Here's why: in any paradox question, you MUST answer all of the paradox. The question was indicating the paradox of why would this generally docile non-fleshing animal be eating a tortoise!? You have to resolve why does it appear that this deer is eating flesh. The answer about eating the shell indicates nothing about the deer killing the tortoise, which leads one to believe, perhaps it was already dead and the deer came upon this dead tortoise.

It also indicates that the deer is not in fact eating flesh, it's merely eating the shell. Though it doesn't really matter, the shell could be composed of matter somewhat like trees/vegetation if you need to resolve that oddity in your mind. Regardless no one would consider flesh and shell the same thing. The bone/shell response answers any potential question the stimulus creates, thus resolving the paradox.... darnit... let's drop this question!
[/quot


I think you have 2 questions confused...

X3Maverick

  • Guest
Look, the tortoise one is a no-brainer.  The CR is that the shell/bone was being eaten.  Here's why:  in any paradox question, you MUST answer all of the paradox.  The question was indicating the paradox of why would this generally docile non-fleshing animal be eating a tortoise!?  You have to resolve why does it appear that this deer is eating flesh.  The answer about eating the shell indicates nothing about the deer killing the tortoise, which leads one to believe, perhaps it was already dead and the deer came upon this dead tortoise.

It also indicates that the deer is not in fact eating flesh, it's merely eating the shell.  Though it doesn't really matter, the shell could be composed of matter somewhat like trees/vegetation if you need to resolve that oddity in your mind.   Regardless no one would consider flesh and shell the same thing.  The bone/shell response answers any potential question the stimulus creates, thus resolving the paradox.... darnit... let's drop this question!

wrong question.

hth