Law School Discussion

#13 - Thinking conceptually required for language

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2005, 09:43:59 PM »
any newcomers remember this question...principle in which its better to seek information even if that information may be bad

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2005, 09:52:14 PM »
bumpity bump, 39 from the master list

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2005, 10:57:52 PM »
bumpity bump

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2005, 12:04:38 AM »
--i'm not sure if it is right; however it is right i suppose it discredits the consensus IF animals cannot think conceptually.


--right now i am trying to figure out 39 of the master list(principle--its always best to seek out info even if it migiht be negative information)

-- and also the exact wording of the 24%, 16% 30% correct response; specifically, did it mention the fact that its possible half of the 16% are additive to the 24 thus giving enough support? 

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2005, 01:06:46 AM »
bump

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2005, 01:47:50 AM »
bump

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2005, 07:27:26 AM »
I've been complaining about this 16 24 percent question for a while!!

I am not 100 percent sure, but I do really think the correct answer is the one that says the two percentages can be made of different people. Basically, the question said you need 30 percent of support in order to be an official party. Support can come from either people giving you money or signing up. So far, 16 percent have given money and 24 percent have signed up (might be reversed). And then the conclusion was, not enough for a party. The question was kind of assuming that the 16 percent were part of the 24 percent, but it was not clear this was the case, so of course if they were completely different sets of people, then voila. You get your 30 percent.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2005, 07:41:00 AM »
I've been complaining about this 16 24 percent question for a while!!

I am not 100 percent sure, but I do really think the correct answer is the one that says the two percentages can be made of different people. Basically, the question said you need 30 percent of support in order to be an official party. Support can come from either people giving you money or signing up. So far, 16 percent have given money and 24 percent have signed up (might be reversed). And then the conclusion was, not enough for a party. The question was kind of assuming that the 16 percent were part of the 24 percent, but it was not clear this was the case, so of course if they were completely different sets of people, then voila. You get your 30 percent.


i concur, although i didnt know the consensus answer was any different.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2005, 07:49:01 AM »
Yeah., the consensus answer says that people who may join the party later may have already given money. I have asked about this before--it is possible that they are the same reponse. But I wonder if it is the case, because the answer I chose could be correct now, present tense, and does not depend on people to join later.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2005, 08:19:50 AM »
Yeah., the consensus answer says that people who may join the party later may have already given money. I have asked about this before--it is possible that they are the same reponse. But I wonder if it is the case, because the answer I chose could be correct now, present tense, and does not depend on people to join later.

you've piqued my interest, which means that if the consensus is different im going to write like 10 different posts trying to argue with the posters. Fun times. Let me go check the thread. lol