Law School Discussion

#13 - Thinking conceptually required for language

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2005, 08:26:33 AM »
i looked at the master list. there are some consensus answers that i'm very certain are wrong, so i hope people reading the threads take the "consensus" with a grain of salt. of course i'm one voice, but i've spent a few days arguing some points with people and i think they agreed- to the point where some of the "consensus" answers were agreed upon as wrong, like the time management one, even by some that originally advocated the consensus answer. the master lists weren't edited though.

that being said: yes, i agree with you, the 16% 24% one the answer should be the one that is not green on the master list. i could try to argue the point, but i'm sure it's been done before on the 50+ page thread. just wanted to add my 2 cents so that people will know that there ARE other people out there who think the answer isn't the one that is favored. this one like the 60 psych problems one is a "tricky" question, but not impossible. it really would be funny to grade the master list and see what kind of score it gets. this would probably be most possible for LR.

the 60 psych problems one also, i think has a wrong consensus answer. i've argued this one a lot also. Hmm..

hopefully we'll get our scores in 10 days or so, and all the worrying can be put to rest.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2005, 08:31:59 AM »
Yay! Sea Dream, you made my day. I've been reading a lot of your posts and value your opinion highly! I have been questioning more than a few of the consensus responses, but they had me so freaked out that I almost decided to cancel. You have renewed my hope!

And i just send off my very first app--so this is a good day indeed.

imago

  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2005, 08:35:40 AM »
I agree with y'all on the political parties question.  I remember reading the stimulus, immediately identifying the flaw/assumption, the looking for an answer choice that worked.  Thought this was a very cut-and-dried question.

And fwiw, I'm one of the people who no longer defend the "consultants criteria" answer.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2005, 08:49:15 AM »
I agree with y'all on the political parties question.  I remember reading the stimulus, immediately identifying the flaw/assumption, the looking for an answer choice that worked.  Thought this was a very cut-and-dried question.

And fwiw, I'm one of the people who no longer defend the "consultants criteria" answer.

Yes.

and since i decided i'll post some manner of argument supporting my answer choice, here it is:

WHY were we given the figures of 16% and 24% of two composite parts of the population, and we need 30%, just to have the answer be something rather irrelevant to the figures given and also a bit too pat and dry like "more people will join later"? you're right, this shouldn't be a HARD question to figure out after the fact.

HOAH

  • ****
  • 111
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2005, 08:50:29 AM »
I hate to spoil the new consensus but I think that the original consensus answer was right.
They have it stated wrong in that thread. Im pretty sure it didnt say anything about joining later. Or maybe there was a different one that did.
I think the option was, there may be people willing to donate money who are not willing to join (ever).

I agree with everyone's reasoning that what you have to establish is that the 16 and 24 groups are not made up of the same people. From what I recall on the test, though, this was the only answer than allowed you to do this. Does anyone remember another answer?

Consensus is no fun anyway.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2005, 08:52:04 AM »
Yay! Sea Dream, you made my day. I've been reading a lot of your posts and value your opinion highly! I have been questioning more than a few of the consensus responses, but they had me so freaked out that I almost decided to cancel. You have renewed my hope!

And i just send off my very first app--so this is a good day indeed.


Thanks, that is really high praise. :) and here i thought all my arguments were probably just getting annoying. but yeah, don't cancel based off the post-mortem. it isn't really updated any more, and it's certainly not the be all and end all of answers. hopefully you did just as well as you expected to going in.

congratulations on sending out the first app- i've yet to do that. :( oh well, i'm getting to work now.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2005, 08:53:47 AM »
I hate to spoil the new consensus but I think that the original consensus answer was right.
They have it stated wrong in that thread. Im pretty sure it didnt say anything about joining later. Or maybe there was a different one that did.
I think the option was, there may be people willing to donate money who are not willing to join (ever).

I agree with everyone's reasoning that what you have to establish is that the 16 and 24 groups are not made up of the same people. From what I recall on the test, though, this was the only answer than allowed you to do this. Does anyone remember another answer?

Consensus is no fun anyway.

Well, your reasoning is exactly the one behind what we think is correct. i have no idea what the answer choice i chose was like in wording. i don't remember, but yeah, there was really only one that stood out. and it certainly wasnt willing to join later, or etc. which is what is highlighted in green and supposedly the consensus answer in the thread.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2005, 08:55:34 AM »
well.. let me add that i think the correct answer choice was something along the lines of "people who donate money may not always also want to join the party". i mean, this is completely scrambled and i dont even know if donate money and join the party were the two alternatives given, but anyways the wording was such that just because one is in one group doesn't mean that one is in the other. Therefore meaning that 16 and 24% is not the maximum number of people supporting, but there could in fact be a sum of the two that might be above 30%.

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2005, 08:56:10 AM »
HOAH, you are correct. That is the response. But there is a bg difference between "may be people willing to donate money who are not willing to join (ever)" and what the consensus answer says. I agree that there is chance it was just worded incorrectly. That being said, there are other consensus answers that may just be worded differently, which is why i think i got them wrong.

HOAH

  • ****
  • 111
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2005, 08:57:32 AM »
I guess we are back to consensus then. Wording is definitely key.