Law School Discussion

deleting out

I reasoned as follows:
For climbers, the conclusion was pretty much "because all different functions were impaired, this proves that speech is not controlled by a distinct part of one's brain"
Debated answers:
A- Entire brain; at first i thought this was it. I thought maybe if the entire brain was affected than both the speech part of the brain was impaired and the other parts of the brain. So this does not rule out the possibility that the speech part of the brain is distinct. But then i thought, suppose the argument says that the entire brain is responsible for all of the actions described,  and that speech is not distinct from those other parts. Then the fact that the entire brain was affected does not hurt the argument.

C- i thought that if speech is impaired more or less than movement and that is impaired more or less than thought process, than it shows that all three are probably distinct. For it seems that if they were not distinct that all would be impaired relatively equally, because all the parts of the brain are equally deprived of oxygen. So this answer to me denied this nec. assumption.

Furthermore, the stimulus simply said that the climbers slurred their speech, were bad at moving and slow at thinking. But it does not address the degree of these impairments. If they slurred their speech a lot but were a little of balance, than this seems to suggest that the speech part of the brain is different and was affected differently.

Would someone care to address why the TCR is more correct than the minority answer for this question?

13. What would the author be most likely to agree with?
ANSWER: Convinced that modern bankruptcy laws do not need to be modified.
MINORITY: Approves the changing of previously inefficient laws


Since the entire passage is about how beneficial the changes to inefficient punitive bankruptcy laws were, I dont see how the minority answer can in any way be wrong, but I can see how the TCR might be wrong. the author never says the laws need no further modification or tweaking. Modification doesnt have to mean that the laws would revert back to being more punitive, it could mean anything. I can see how this answer might be correct, but I cant see why it is MORE correct than the minority answer, which I see as being the safer response.

I reasoned as follows:
For climbers, the conclusion was pretty much "because all different functions were impaired, this proves that speech is not controlled by a distinct part of one's brain"
Debated answers:
A- Entire brain; at first i thought this was it. I thought maybe if the entire brain was affected than both the speech part of the brain was impaired and the other parts of the brain. So this does not rule out the possibility that the speech part of the brain is distinct. But then i thought, suppose the argument says that the entire brain is responsible for all of the actions described,  and that speech is not distinct from those other parts. Then the fact that the entire brain was affected does not hurt the argument.

C- i thought that if speech is impaired more or less than movement and that is impaired more or less than thought process, than it shows that all three are probably distinct. For it seems that if they were not distinct that all would be impaired relatively equally, because all the parts of the brain are equally deprived of oxygen. So this answer to me denied this nec. assumption.



What if speech is just a more sensitive thing? Like the brain part is hit by so much oxyg. deprivation and it just falls apart? Who knows?


As for A, what you say is just... pushing the boundaries. I think C doesn't weaken at all, while A if you @#!* around w/ it might not. C just never weakens for me. Plus, knowing that the brain has several parts which do different things seems like a common sense assumption to me.

No it's not common sense, as it was denied by the conclusion which said that speech is not distinct from other parts of one's brain.

guys, the reason the entire brain one is right is this:

even if they were affected to different degrees, you don't know that that's just how those parts of the brain work-- even if they are located together. maybe the same amount of oxygen deprivation causes you to realllly slur your speech but doesn't make you walk worse. to me, this answer choice never weakened it.

however, if you say that the damage affected the whole brain, you have much less reason to conclude that the part for speech must be near or next to the others.

i didn't think this one was that hard...

Root Hog

  • ****
  • 343
  • The USA PATRIOT Act
    • View Profile
Would someone care to address why the TCR is more correct than the minority answer for this question?

13. What would the author be most likely to agree with?
ANSWER: Convinced that modern bankruptcy laws do not need to be modified.
MINORITY: Approves the changing of previously inefficient laws


I was with the majority on this answer. However, upon further reflection, if we have the stimulus and answers correct, the answer is obviously the minority one. Based on the author's analysis of current law and his advocacy for not returning to punitive laws, the majority answer is definately a ststement that he would second, but the majority answer is too extreme to assume that he would agree. Dammit

yeah, after thinking about why I chose (the current) minority answer, I realized why I had chosen it instead of the one about there being no need for further modification---something that was never explicitly stated in the passage.

my question is this.........why on earth did someone decide that the current TCR is correct when it seems pretty easy to dismantle?

guys, the reason the entire brain one is right is this:

even if they were affected to different degrees, you don't know that that's just how those parts of the brain work-- even if they are located together. maybe the same amount of oxygen deprivation causes you to realllly slur your speech but doesn't make you walk worse. to me, this answer choice never weakened it.

however, if you say that the damage affected the whole brain, you have much less reason to conclude that the part for speech must be near or next to the others.

i didn't think this one was that hard...
Well we're just trying to find a flaw in the argument. The premises said something like this "the climbers showed impairment in speech, movement and thinking". The conclusion said "from this we can conclude that speech part of the brain is definately not distinct from the other parts of the brain".
The flaw here is not that the argument overlooks that the whole brain lacked oxygen. In fact it probably considers it, because it wouldn't be logically possible for some parts of the brain to have more oxygen than others at the same altitude. After all, the different parts of ones brain are not going to be in different altitudes.
What we need to do is counter the conclusion, and show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is the whole idea of identifying the flaw of the argument. Now suppose the conclusion is correct, and the part of the brain responsible for speech is also responsible say for movement. This is one part of the brain, and if it is affected by the lack of oxygen it would have to show equal level of impairments for both movement and speech. The reason for this is that it is the same part of the brain. If it is very susceptible to the lack of oxygen, then it won't be able to function well in both areas; that is it won't be able to perform both its speech function and movement function perfectly. But it is incosnistant to think that it's speech function is impaired only a very slightly while its movement function is impaired greatly, or vice versa. I think in a case like this it is more logical to infer that two different areas of one's brain are responsible for these functions, and that one area is more susceptible to lack of oxygen than the other.

Root Hog

  • ****
  • 343
  • The USA PATRIOT Act
    • View Profile
I wonder if we re4started polls on some of these debated questions, if the results would change significantly? I wonder if debate has changed anyone's minds? I know of at least two that I originally defended on which I now have been persuaded that I was wrong? Anyone else?