Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: june lsat- Logic Reasoning  (Read 1659 times)

othius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: june lsat- Logic Reasoning
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2004, 01:18:48 PM »
Been a lurker for a while and finally registered. I figured I would since I took the lest yesterday.... Yes, I put the same answer about gaining confidence, yada, yada....
All in all it wasn't a horrible test compared to the practices I've been doing. I'm glad it's over though!

Bruner

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: june lsat- Logic Reasoning
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2004, 05:34:37 PM »
wasn't the answer something like the therapists could gain the criminals confidemce and treat him effectively.
Weightlifting Commentator:  "This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria.  I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing." <---NBC

Tennis Commentator:  "One of the reasons Andy is playing so well is that, before the final round, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them."<--NBC

Haz

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: june lsat- Logic Reasoning
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2004, 06:20:53 PM »
Does anyone remember what the exact question was in that one? I dont think I put what you all put, but I thought I was correct at the time.  I think I put something like not all criminals in jail receive therapy, because the argument made the claim about criminals in jail.  I dont know, whateva
Hello Wisconsin!

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: june lsat- Logic Reasoning
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2004, 06:36:19 PM »
I think it was something along the lines that therapists cannot ethically and effectively treat criminals.  The have a duty to both the public to prevent crimes and the to client to maintian confidentiality.  But if a therapist maintains confidentially, they criminal goes unpunished, and is free to commit more crimes against the public.  If they report the criminal's acts, they lose the trust of the patient.

The question I think was something like a weaken type thing.  The answer, as I saw it, was that the argument would be weakened if it were true that therapists could treat criminals, and maintain confidentiality, and through their private treatment, successfully discourage crimnals from committing more crimes.

This obviously isn't worded like the test, but this is as close as I remember it.