Law School Discussion

(Updated) LR PM (49/50)

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2006, 03:40:40 PM »
I disagree with the answer provided for #10.  The question essentially said that supply will fall in the future and its conclusion involved the future as well - thus demand's current position relative to supply is not relevant.  That being said, I forget what the other answer choices were.
tweaked it a little, since i remember it saying that it assumes that the actual demand will exceed supply. But if you negate it (not exceed) then the argument falls apart.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2006, 03:44:32 PM »
Thats probably it then, and it may even be the answer I put, cant remember for the life of me. 

Re: 26, I think the nut answer should be added as an alternative.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2006, 03:44:39 PM »
38. I am almost sure the answer to the flaggelem question was in order for the argument to be valid that some the compenents of the flaggelum could not be evolutionairy neccessary.. or something like that.

SBToLaw

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2006, 03:45:59 PM »
38. I am almost sure the answer to the flaggelem question was in order for the argument to be valid that some the compenents of the flaggelum could not be evolutionairy neccessary.. or something like that.


Yeah....I think you and I are referring to the same answer.

Harmonium

  • ****
  • 352
  • Schiedmayer
    • View Profile
Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2006, 03:46:13 PM »
yeah, the "parts" answer. we're all saying the same thing, I think. But I know people were entertaining other answers yesterday...

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2006, 03:46:42 PM »
38. I am almost sure the answer to the flaggelem question was in order for the argument to be valid that some the compenents of the flaggelum could not be evolutionairy neccessary.. or something like that.

yes, that was what i had as well.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2006, 03:47:38 PM »
#10 I disagree with that answer to... I think the correct answer was that demand would not increase...
Because in the question it said that people have unlimited demands and that supply of resources is always limited.  Then it was concluded that demand will outstrip supply. In order to reach that conclusion you have to assume that demand would not incraese. Or something like that...

Harmonium

  • ****
  • 352
  • Schiedmayer
    • View Profile
Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2006, 03:49:42 PM »
Why would you have to assume that? The whole point was the demand keeps increasing, and that was stated in the stim...but for that to be a problem the demand has to be greater than the supply, which was not stated.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2006, 03:49:46 PM »
OK, for those who have debated questions you should start a thread dedicated to those questions and discuss. Maybe make a poll. I think that's waht we did in sept.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2006, 03:50:52 PM »
Alternatives for 37 and 46.

Obviously, for the murder question, the alternative is that they were not S's fingerprints.

For the opera singers, alternative is that some singers who are not technically trained and take on demanding roles strain their voices.
for 46 it's pretty much what i have up there.