Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Pretty please help me with this LR question......  (Read 1174 times)

LSATgirl

  • Guest
Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« on: August 25, 2005, 08:19:59 PM »
This is from June 1993.....

1)  Sheila: Health experts generally agree that smoking a tobacco product for many years is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.

A major weakness of Tim's counterargument is that his counterargument

(A) attempts to refute a probablistic conclusion by claiming the existence of a single counterexample.
(C) describes an individual case that is explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion.

The answer is A. >:(

2)  The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage?

(C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim.
(D) justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples.

The answer is C. I chose D because there were examples given.

LSATgirl

  • Guest
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2005, 08:46:18 PM »
I'm at my wit's end with this section. I feel like I'm going to have a meltdown.

Should I just go over Powerscore's LRB again and do the questions all over again from the old tests?

The only problem with this (going over all the old tests again) is that I have a photographic memory and I remember the answer w/out even having to read the question in its entirety.

River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2005, 10:35:48 PM »
This is from June 1993.....

1)  Sheila: Health experts generally agree that smoking a tobacco product for many years is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.

A major weakness of Tim's counterargument is that his counterargument

(A) attempts to refute a probablistic conclusion by claiming the existence of a single counterexample.
(C) describes an individual case that is explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion.

The answer is A. >:(

2)  The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage?

(C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim.
(D) justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples.

The answer is C. I chose D because there were examples given.


Sheila:  smoking a tobacco is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
=probable to harm
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.
=smoking has no effect on health at all because My granfather died of smoking a cigar.:  Yet this is your own grandfather's case, which can not represent health effect of all of the smokers.  Thus, A) fits.



The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution.
=society gets benefits more than harm from the French Revolution.

But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly=This says NO, not true.

since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.=This part shows why it is not true.  Thus, C) fits.


SanchoPanzo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2098
  • My avatar is hotter than your avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2005, 10:47:20 PM »
1) The answer is A (as you know). It is not C because C is a half-correct half-wrong answer. Although an individual case is described, the case is NOT "explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion".

2) The answer is not D because "a series of persuasive examples" is NOT given.


LSATgirl, it seems you fell for the same "trick" in both answers. You selected answers with claims that are not covered in the stimulus or that describe methods or statements not made in the stimulus. Make certain you watch out for those. ALWAYS before selecting an answer ask yourself if ALL parts of that answer are supported.
1L
order in the midst of chaos surrounded by order and a sprinkling of mist with chaos flavor. bake 2 hours then serve

LSATgirl

  • Guest
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2005, 11:10:30 PM »
Sancho,
I always seem to choose answers that are out of scope (kaplan's words) or the complete opposite of this. :-\


1) The answer is A (as you know). It is not C because C is a half-correct half-wrong answer. Although an individual case is described, the case is NOT "explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion".

2) The answer is not D because "a series of persuasive examples" is NOT given.


LSATgirl, it seems you fell for the same "trick" in both answers. You selected answers with claims that are not covered in the stimulus or that describe methods or statements not made in the stimulus. Make certain you watch out for those. ALWAYS before selecting an answer ask yourself if ALL parts of that answer are supported.

LSATgirl

  • Guest
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2005, 11:14:33 PM »
Thanks River.  May I ask- Is LR your best section?

I have a question about #2. So this sentence (last sentence in the stimulus) would not be considered 'persuasive examples?' (choice D)

"Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided."


This is from June 1993.....

1)  Sheila: Health experts generally agree that smoking a tobacco product for many years is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.

A major weakness of Tim's counterargument is that his counterargument

(A) attempts to refute a probablistic conclusion by claiming the existence of a single counterexample.
(C) describes an individual case that is explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion.

The answer is A. >:(

2)  The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage?

(C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim.
(D) justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples.

The answer is C. I chose D because there were examples given.


Sheila:  smoking a tobacco is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
=probable to harm
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.
=smoking has no effect on health at all because My granfather died of smoking a cigar.:  Yet this is your own grandfather's case, which can not represent health effect of all of the smokers.  Thus, A) fits.



The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution.
=society gets benefits more than harm from the French Revolution.

But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly=This says NO, not true.

since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.=This part shows why it is not true.  Thus, C) fits.



River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2005, 11:51:34 PM »
Thanks River.  May I ask- Is LR your best section?

I have a question about #2. So this sentence (last sentence in the stimulus) would not be considered 'persuasive examples?' (choice D)

"Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided."


This is from June 1993.....

1)  Sheila: Health experts generally agree that smoking a tobacco product for many years is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.

A major weakness of Tim's counterargument is that his counterargument

(A) attempts to refute a probablistic conclusion by claiming the existence of a single counterexample.
(C) describes an individual case that is explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion.

The answer is A. >:(

2)  The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage?

(C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim.
(D) justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples.

The answer is C. I chose D because there were examples given.


Sheila:  smoking a tobacco is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
=probable to harm
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.
=smoking has no effect on health at all because My granfather died of smoking a cigar.:  Yet this is your own grandfather's case, which can not represent health effect of all of the smokers.  Thus, A) fits.



The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution.
=society gets benefits more than harm from the French Revolution.

But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly=This says NO, not true.

since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.=This part shows why it is not true.  Thus, C) fits.



May I ask- Is LR your best section? 
Yes, and LR is the most essential for study of law, as I beleive.

I have a question about #2. So this sentence (last sentence in the stimulus) would not be considered 'persuasive examples?' (choice D):  This is not persuasive but factual examples based on historical evidence or information.

"Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided."

GarrySmeltzer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty please help me with this LR question......
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2014, 02:05:28 AM »
This is from June 1993.....

1)  Sheila: Health experts generally agree that smoking a tobacco product for many years is very likely to be harmful to the smoker's health.
    Tim: On the contrary, smoking has no effect on health at all: although my grandfather smoked three cigars a day from the age of 14, he died at age 96.

A major weakness of Tim's counterargument is that his counterargument

(A) attempts to refute a probablistic conclusion by claiming the existence of a single counterexample.
(C) describes an individual case that is explicitly discounted as an exception to the experts' conclusion.

The answer is A. >:(

2)  The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revoltion had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage?

(C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim.
(D) justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples.

The answer is C. I chose D because there were examples given.
Well smoking cigar point is valid.. My Grandpa smokes 4-5 cigarettes every day and he is still fine at the age of 85