Law School Discussion

LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #130 on: October 05, 2006, 02:39:42 AM »
For the Progressive taxes benefitting the wealthy question, anyone remember if the correct response was E?  I think I put down the one the Master List states, but not exactly sure.  I remember this question being right after the Asteroid/Fire one, and put down D and E as the last two answers for the section.

stormandstress

  • ****
  • 248
  • ... im struggling
    • View Profile
Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #131 on: October 05, 2006, 02:55:02 AM »
This is a dead horse, but...

The question with the grocery list.

Majority was "items on sale were the most expensive items to begin with".

MY GOODNESS!?! What in the world does that have to do with anything? They could all have been a billion dollars a piece. On sale at $.02 each and how does that resolve/explain?

"Unnecessary" could mean "more than needed". I'm thinking that inherent in a list is organization and efficiency. You negate the neatness of the list by being unorganized, and buying unnecessary things would do that.

I like this analysis. A+ for you  ;D

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #132 on: October 05, 2006, 05:04:40 AM »
no they bought a comparable number of items. this was a percentages question, mark my words. if the things were really expensive to begin with, then they could stil be more expensive than the other stuff even if they are on sale for 50% off or more. that would resolve the paradox.

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #133 on: October 05, 2006, 05:30:40 AM »
the answer choice did not say really expensive, so the example given above is still valid.  expensive could have meant just a bit more expensive.  the stimulus did not say 'comparable number of items'...it said 'comparable items'...

i think the crucial point is this...

if it said 'comparable number of items', the answer about sale items just being more expensive initially requires a huge assumption...the assumption that the shoppers also bought comparable items.  if they did not buy comparable items, then the list users might have bought some very expensive items at full price while the sale buyers bought some expensive items at a sale price...in this scenario, the sale buyers would have bought expensive items, but still spent less in total...the question doesn't make sense if it didn't say 'comparable items'

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #134 on: October 05, 2006, 05:33:58 AM »
it said comparable number of items.. i know bc i went back to check to make sure, otherwise the answer wouldnt make sense. i will bet my firstborn on this one as well.

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #135 on: October 05, 2006, 05:43:22 AM »
the answer would make perfect sense if it didnt say 'comp. # of items.'  if it instead said 'comparable items,' we could say that the buyers without the list simply bought unnecessary things.  though these unnecessary things were on sale, they added up to surpass the total spent by the buyers using the list but paying the full price for each item.

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #136 on: October 05, 2006, 05:45:11 AM »
but it did say comparable number of items...

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #137 on: October 05, 2006, 05:50:22 AM »
it did not say 'comparable number of items.'  it could not have because if it had there would not be a possible answer that was correct.  the answer under consideration that sale items are more expensive to begin with does not resolve the paradox.  what if the list buyers bought a comparable number of the same items?  then, regardless of whether or not the sale items were more expensive to begin with, the sale buyers would have spent less.  the stimulus, if it said 'comparable number of items' did not exclude this possibility.  the only way that answer could be right is if it is said 'comparable number of items' and 'comparable items.'  i don't think anybody is claiming this though.

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #138 on: October 05, 2006, 05:55:43 AM »
bleeegggh you're missing the point. this is a percentages question. the point is to resolve the paradox about prices being lower, and spending more. quantity is irrelevant. you aren't going to have enough info form a RTP question to make something for *certain*-- however, knowing that sale items are more expensive initally is the BEST way to resolve that buying items on sale leads you to spend more money. buying more unnecessary stuff could also NOT work-- if you bought 50 stupid things for a penny... you're 50 cents more in the whole, but if the things were cheaper to begin with... you've spent *less*. contrary to the stimulus.

besides which, this is irrelevant bc, as i've sworn my firstborn on, it did say comparable numbers. i went back and checked to make sure it was there before i bubbled in my answer, and it was there.

Re: LR Master List - Sept 06 Post Mortem (49/50, more detailed version)
« Reply #139 on: October 05, 2006, 06:00:44 AM »
. buying more unnecessary stuff could also NOT work-- if you bought 50 stupid things for a penny... you're 50 cents more in the whole, but if the things were cheaper to begin with... you've spent *less*. contrary to the stimulus.

besides which, this is irrelevant bc, as i've sworn my firstborn on, it did say comparable numbers. i went back and checked to make sure it was there before i bubbled in my answer, and it was there.

you can swear on whatever you want, but it did not say 'comp. # of items.'

also, your contention that buying more unnecessary stuff could also NOT work is incorrect.  that is the importance of saying 'comparable items.'  if you say comparable items, then one group cannot buy stupid stuff while the other buys better stuff.