Law School Discussion

MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 4 LEFT!!!

Luxor

  • ****
  • 442
    • View Profile
Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 6 LEFT!!!
« Reply #230 on: December 06, 2005, 05:58:24 PM »
can someone (unbiased) update me on what the consensus answers are for the questions in dispute, if they have changed. and can someone please tell me which 3 or however many are completely unknow, so i can update the master list? thanks

guys - i think that the last 6 are questions that we most likely got right, since you typically only remember the qs that you had difficulty with.

Wolvie, the "vested interest" question was for sure on the test--I neglected to make a post about this question last night ("vested interest was an expression used in the answer--can't remember anything new about the stimulus or other answer choices)

Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 6 LEFT!!!
« Reply #231 on: December 06, 2005, 06:15:19 PM »
35. 24% will join a new political party,  16% will give money, A party needs at least 30% to support it, etc those who have yet to join may donate money


Someone referenced this a few posts back...I am quite sure that the answer was E, someting about how people in one group may not be people in another group. It may be the same choice as what is posted, but i am not sure. The correct answer is the one that suggests some people give money, and some other different people give support.

Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 6 LEFT!!!
« Reply #232 on: December 06, 2005, 08:05:47 PM »
oil company was on there. i had experimental games.

what were the other choices for the 'mozart skull' question?

aliciachen23

  • ***
  • 89
  • My wife and baby boy!
    • View Profile
Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 6 LEFT!!!
« Reply #233 on: December 06, 2005, 08:48:24 PM »
Okay, the art musem question. 

Did anyone else beside me go with "confuses a necessary condition with sufficient"?

I'm not going to try to reconstruct the wording of the argument b/c I think it's pretty obvious where relying on memory gets you...

Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 6 LEFT!!!
« Reply #234 on: December 06, 2005, 09:46:09 PM »
"There are no good arguments against the power plant. All the arguments are presented by competing power plants"
I think...
and the answer was something about a vested interest.
Is that already on the list?

Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 6 LEFT!!!
« Reply #235 on: December 06, 2005, 10:41:09 PM »
i think we just have too many threads now :) several of these questions have been discussed elsewhere.

the question you guys are talking about is about the oil company i think. a representative says that the plans for the oil company should go through because no good arguments have been presented against it. "Afterall, all arguments that have been presented against it are from competing power (maybe electric?) companies. the answer is that good counterarguments cannot be given by those who have a vested interest in the outcome.

there's another question that needs to be added about politicians. it's an assumption question that says, some argue that the most effective politicians are those who most adroitly respond to public opinion. while others say that the most effective politicians are those who best influence public opinion. but there is merit to both arguments since any politician who has been successful at getting legislation through congress has been adept at both (influencing and responding to p.o.).

the assumption is that those who are successful at getting legislation through congress are the most effective politicians.

leto

Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 4 LEFT!!!
« Reply #236 on: December 08, 2005, 02:17:36 PM »
Hey guys, I'm kind of thinking a lot about this question from LR sections that many people debated. The questions was: In an experiment a new medical therapy was tested on 100 people all of which had some psycho-symptom. 75% of the total of 60 "symptoms" present dissapeared after 5 weeks of therapy. Conclusion: This shows that for most of the people 5 weeks will be enough to cure their disease (or symptoms). What is the flaw in the argument?
One answer that I don't remember, but others do, said something like the argument doesn't take into account the possibility that many people could have only one symptom (or disease). People who picked this justify by saying that if most people had one symptom, and if that symptom was not in those 75% cured, then 5 weeks may not be enough. I can't remember seeing this answer at all, and even though the justification of this answer makes sense, the answer itself doesn't adress directly the flaw. The wording is not strong enough. The argument in fact does consider that most people could have only one symptom. The flaw is in the jump from "solving most symptoms in 5wks" to "helping most people in 5wks". The flaw is therefore in assuming that most people "do have only one disease" and that those 60 symptoms in the study are in fact uniformly distributed among sick people. Only under these conditions would it be OK to draw the conclusion of the argument. The other answer that me and some other people picked said: it doesn't consider the possibility that "most" people have more than one symptom. My proof: if most people had three symptoms for example, then on average 75% of symptoms solved in 5wks would still leave some symptoms beyond 5wks. I thought this one was the only one that was close. I may be wrong, since we all try to recall this from memory, and wording is extremely important here. What do you think?

Root Hog

  • ****
  • 343
  • The USA PATRIOT Act
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 4 LEFT!!!
« Reply #237 on: December 08, 2005, 03:50:35 PM »
The answer most picked is a little bit different than you're giving it credit for -it's that the flaw is assuming that some of the subjects didn't have more than one sickness which makes your reasoning right on the money. I think the confusion is just semantics.

Re: MASTER LR LIST - ONLY 4 LEFT!!!
« Reply #238 on: December 08, 2005, 06:26:51 PM »
The answer most picked is a little bit different than you're giving it credit for -it's that the flaw is assuming that some of the subjects didn't have more than one sickness which makes your reasoning right on the money. I think the confusion is just semantics.

i responded in the post mortem thread about this one, but i'm pretty positive (in my opinion tho, not trying hard to ruffle feathers) that the answer you stated is wrong. After a lot of argument, i think there was at least some consensus that the answer choice is probably "the disease common to most people has an equal chance of being any of the 60" for reasons i stated in the other thread. there was also a small camp for another answer choice which came down to a different recolletion of the stimulus.