Law School Discussion

A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....

A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« on: October 09, 2008, 07:02:04 PM »
Some things have been changed for copyrighted purposes.

1)  It's apparent that 1 ought to have a will stating how 1 wishes 1's estate to be distributed. This can easily be seen from the fact that, according to current laws, in the absence of a legal will distant realtives whom 1 has never even met have a greater legal right to 1's estate than 1's beloved friends do.

Which 1 of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(D) People are generally not indifferent about how their estates are distributed.
(This is the correct answer & I do understand it!)

(E) One's beloved friends have a greater legal right to one's estate than one's distant relative's do.
(I chose this & it's also the most tempting answer according to 2 test prep co. Kaplan's explanation of this totally sucked!)

Why isn't (E) right? Maybe I didn't properly negate it. I really like (E)! :-\

I really struggled w/the following one...

2)  R: To become an attorney, a person should be required to have a diversity of experience. The more diverse one's experience, the more one will understand the need for compromise.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough, as you recommend, that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in S's response to R's statements?

(C) The response attributes to Ruth a view that's more vulnerable to criticism (btw, vulnerable to criticism means weaken, right?) than any she actually expresses.

(D) The response fails to make a needed distinction between personal experience & relevant professional experience.

The correct answer is (C) and I chose (D).

First of all, I'm not even sure I understand what S is saying. Maybe that's why I got this wrong.  Public trust so the people will compromise w/him??

Thank you!

Re: A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2008, 11:40:44 PM »
What are you talking about star? 'S' does not talk about any sufficient condition that 'R' has mentioned. He/she starts out with something completely different (worthiness of pub respect) than 'R' has stated he/she believes.... that is the flaw... the attribution to 'R' something other than 'R' has stated.

As for answer choice 'D', there is no failure to distinguish... it is the misrepresentation that is the issue. By not understanding the stimulus you were forced to guess... don't guess unless you absolutely have to.

Re: A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2008, 12:28:55 AM »
I'm going to agree with Allstar, here.

R has said that a diversity of experiences should be a requirement to become an attorney. S stated that R has said that one simply needs a variety of experiences to become an attorney.  But R did not say that if one has a variety of experiences, then nothing else is needed to become an attorney. S has mistaken R's necessary condition for a sufficient condition.


By S misstating what R has said, S has opened up R's statement to criticism. (Choice C).


As for the first one, the argument states that one should have a will. The reason for having a will is because if one does not have a will, then distant relatives, rather than close friends, might have a greater legal right to one's estate.

I'm a fan of negating, so I'll explain how I would go about reasoning out this problem.

Assume that one is generally indifferent as to how one's estate is distributed. (This is the negation of the correct response, choice D).  If one is generally indifferent as to how one's estate is distributed, then not having a will will not negatively effect the person who has died in the way in which the argument claims that it will.

In other words, if one is generally indifferent as to how one's estate is distributed, then one does not care whether one's distant relatives receive the estate, rather than one's close friends.  If one doesn't care about this, then not having a will (in which case one's distant relatives might be entitled to the estate), will not be much a problem. But, the argument concludes that it is a problem.

So, in order for the argument to remain valid (that one should have a will so that distant relatives are not legally entitled to the estate), it must be true that one is not generally indifferent as to how one's estate is distributed. (choice D)




Re: A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2008, 09:39:34 AM »
Wow, these "explanation" threads are the reason why I shop here. Clearly Lind and Star know what the hell they are talking about. Reading these gets me stoked and fired up to crush some PTs when I get home.

Re: A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2008, 10:10:30 AM »
Thanks everyone. :) Not sure what else to say when it comes to some of these icky problems. I'll try to stop justifying why my answer should be right.

Have a great weekend!

River

  • ****
  • 361
    • View Profile
Re: A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2008, 09:21:26 PM »
Unless I states my will to someone, it should be given to distance relative due to the absence of law; then, you have to make will before you pass away, right?

This assumes that you and others if they make will are interested in making will.