Law School Discussion

POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2005, 12:22:42 PM »
Okay. Yeah, the one about voting is right--the answer is attaching more importance to it...if people don't think the election is improtant they will not vote.

And te ants, I also put the general thing.

And now I remember one that gave me pause--something about  applying a tax and then you had to apply the prinicple. I went with E--not alcohol, not somthing else that looked good, but steel because it was not generating revenue and something else.

imago

  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2005, 12:22:50 PM »
Here's a few I remember:

The Ants question: Something about how organisms that spread out succeed, those that are isolated into a niche are threatened.  Ants are spread out, therefore no species of ant is threatened. 
I think the answer to this was that the author assumed that what was true of ants as a whole was true of all species of ants.

The voting question: There were voter surveys that showed one candidate having an advantage over another, but then the other candidate won the election.
This is similar to an old LSAT question (almost identical)...I think the answer is that the voters who voted for the winner attached more importance to the election.

concur on both. good job.

anybody else think the 2nd LR section was much more difficult?

Brett McKay

  • ****
  • 225
  • The Frugal Law Student
    • View Profile
    • The Frugal Law Student
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2005, 12:23:23 PM »
the ants
Here's a few I remember:

The Ants question: Something about how organisms that spread out succeed, those that are isolated into a niche are threatened.  Ants are spread out, therefore no species of ant is threatened. 
I think the answer to this was that the author assumed that what was true of ants as a whole was true of all species of ants.

The voting question: There were voter surveys that showed one candidate having an advantage over another, but then the other candidate won the election.
This is similar to an old LSAT question (almost identical)...I think the answer is that the voters who voted for the winner attached more importance to the election.

Same

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2005, 12:24:15 PM »
The pill and the placebo one was that most insomniacs can sleep better in a new environment, or something like that.

matts720

  • ****
  • 832
  • Let's Go Nova!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - matts072083
    • View Profile
    • MySpace profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2005, 12:24:33 PM »
what was the answer to the question about the insomniacs and getting sleep with the pill and placebo?

I went with "everyone got better sleep in a new environment, the drugs had no effect"

imago

  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2005, 12:25:11 PM »
what was the answer to the question about the insomniacs and getting sleep with the pill and placebo?

Think this was the medication is ineffective and insomniacs sleep better initially in a new setting.

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2005, 12:25:44 PM »
LRs I remember and had troublw with. . .

-60 psychological disorders

-weaken the managers argument in favor of time management training (or whatever)

Those are exactly the ones I had trouble with.  I put the response about some psychological disorders taking more than 50 weeks to treat (E, I think), and that efficient managers generally don't need to improve their productivity.  But I was uncertain about both.

matts720

  • ****
  • 832
  • Let's Go Nova!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - matts072083
    • View Profile
    • MySpace profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2005, 12:25:50 PM »
Okay. Yeah, the one about voting is right--the answer is attaching more importance to it...if people don't think the election is improtant they will not vote.

And te ants, I also put the general thing.

And now I remember one that gave me pause--something about  applying a tax and then you had to apply the prinicple. I went with E--not alcohol, not somthing else that looked good, but steel because it was not generating revenue and something else.

For the tax question, I went with gasoline, since it wasn't raising revenue and it cost much to enforce, so it was ineffective.

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2005, 12:26:12 PM »
Wait, with the ants question i think two answers were very similar. One was saying that the author is assuming what consitutes individual members applies to the whole, and the other said the author is assuming what applies to the whole must apply to its constituent parts.

I think I answers the latter, because I recall the stimulus ending with "therefore no ants can't successfully spread" or something like that, which I interpreted to mean the author is assuming just because ants as a whole are successful at spreading, then each particular species of ant must be, thus no ant species can't be. What do you think?

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2005, 12:26:25 PM »
Yes, sleep better in a new environment. Wasted a couple minutes on that one, but I am pretty sure it's correct.

Any comments on the tax, steel, cigarettes, alcohol question?