Law School Discussion

Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp

4DClaw

  • ****
  • 812
    • View Profile
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2006, 12:55:35 PM »
I chose that too, Magnum. It was the best of five very bad answers.

Anyone remember the one with the seedlings that would scatter only if a disaster took out the other trees...... they could not survive with competing plants.  then something saying the trees were about the same height/age in the area.
maybe this was experimental - not sure which section .... :-[

I got that one too, but i had 3 LR.

I think I chose the one where there were no floods that wiped out the seedlings until after they'd become mature trees...

spud1987

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2006, 12:56:13 PM »
Does anyone remember anything about the 4th passage (decision making)?  I just know I guessed on about four or five of them.  

Finch

  • ****
  • 145
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2006, 12:57:01 PM »
Anyone remember the one with the seedlings that would scatter only if a disaster took out the other trees...... they could not survive with competing plants.  then something saying the trees were about the same height/age in the area.
maybe this was experimental - not sure which section .... :-[

I remember that one. It sucked hard. Got it wrong for sure. It was not experimental. Man, I hate being wrong.

Something about mohagany seedlings?  Seedlings cannot take hold among older mohogany forests or something like that?

Nine48

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #73 on: February 04, 2006, 12:57:54 PM »
Anyone remember the one with the seedlings that would scatter only if a disaster took out the other trees...... they could not survive with competing plants.  then something saying the trees were about the same height/age in the area.
maybe this was experimental - not sure which section .... :-[

I got that one too, but i had 3 LR.

I think I chose the one where there were no floods that wiped out the seedlings until after they'd become mature trees...

That was definitely not experimental.

I selected the answer that said that seedlings could not take root in areas where mature trees were already growing...

My reasoning:  all forests of that partiuclar tree were the same age.

I am not certain though.

Commie Panda

  • ****
  • 802
  • Don't worry, I'm not really a commie...or a panda
    • View Profile
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #74 on: February 04, 2006, 12:59:44 PM »
I think I put reasoned dismissal (not outright dismissal) because by the end of the passage it seemed that he had reasoned with it, but the last paragraph stated that it was very likely that the big bang would stand because of all the things it had explained in the past and unlikely that the new theory would overtake it.  He said the scientists were right in downplaying the theory's potential or accuracy, something like that...I'm probably wrong.

I'm not sure if I put the same one but that was one that I considered and i didn't put mild skepticism. Basedon the author's comments in the last few sentences, it definitely didn't seem like his/her skepticism was mild, since the author was like 'the astronomers are right in not giving much credence to the research on Hubble's constant' (to paraphrase)

magnumalv

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #75 on: February 04, 2006, 01:00:04 PM »
oops, i think the mahogany stuff should go to the LR thread. (don't worry, i did it too)

Thanks!

magnumalv

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #76 on: February 04, 2006, 01:00:41 PM »
I think I put reasoned dismissal (not outright dismissal) because by the end of the passage it seemed that he had reasoned with it, but the last paragraph stated that it was very likely that the big bang would stand because of all the things it had explained in the past and unlikely that the new theory would overtake it.  He said the scientists were right in downplaying the theory's potential or accuracy, something like that...I'm probably wrong.

I'm not sure if I put the same one but that was one that I considered and i didn't put mild skepticism. Basedon the author's comments in the last few sentences, it definitely didn't seem like his/her skepticism was mild, since the author was like 'the astronomers are right in not giving much credence to the research on Hubble's constant' (to paraphrase)

ditto with commie panda

Finch

  • ****
  • 145
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #77 on: February 04, 2006, 01:02:38 PM »
I think I put reasoned dismissal (not outright dismissal) because by the end of the passage it seemed that he had reasoned with it, but the last paragraph stated that it was very likely that the big bang would stand because of all the things it had explained in the past and unlikely that the new theory would overtake it.  He said the scientists were right in downplaying the theory's potential or accuracy, something like that...I'm probably wrong.

I'm not sure if I put the same one but that was one that I considered and i didn't put mild skepticism. Basedon the author's comments in the last few sentences, it definitely didn't seem like his/her skepticism was mild, since the author was like 'the astronomers are right in not giving much credence to the research on Hubble's constant' (to paraphrase)

That's what got me, it wasn't the skepticism or dismissal part...but what he stated at the end wasn't mild, it was almost completely discrediting.  If it had been reasoned skepticism, i would have likely went with that.

grandnessocity

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #78 on: February 04, 2006, 01:02:55 PM »
I put that it couldn't sprout with grown trees.  That one sucked

Finch

  • ****
  • 145
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #79 on: February 04, 2006, 01:08:31 PM »
Given that there are confrontational exchanges, which of the following would the author most likely agree: the group was not cohesive??

I don't remember what I put for that one, but that sounds like it could be right. Confrontational is a characteristic of groupthink, and cohesive is a necessary condition of groupthink???

Was one of the answers something like "The author would agree that this is not evidence/an example of groupthink?"

I think I put that asnwer.  One of the last questions...