Law School Discussion

(Updated) LR PM (49/50)

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2006, 06:42:07 PM »
sorry i havent been payin attention to the other threads...was there any discussion on #9...what was the argument against the answer choice that talked about observing children blablabla already makes them hyperactie.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2006, 06:45:13 PM »
I'm positive that the answer is the grandma one.  The whole point was that the act had to fulfill the doer's original goals and help OTHERS as well. the guy cooking for his neighbors didn't really help others he made steak and the neighbors were vegetarian), he only helped himself.  The grandma one fulfilled the mom's intended goals of getting his kids to hang out with granny, and it made others (the granny and the kids) happy.



Harmonium

  • ****
  • 352
  • Schiedmayer
    • View Profile
Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2006, 06:46:18 PM »
yeah, I think that's what I put! Because the stim said that there were control groups of normal kids for the sugar types AND a substitute, so just saying the substitute makes them hyperactive doesn't weaken as much as the activity of observation, which affects ALL the kids, not just the ones who took the sub. Make any sense?
sorry i havent been payin attention to the other threads...was there any discussion on #9...what was the argument against the answer choice that talked about observing children blablabla already makes them hyperactie.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2006, 06:47:01 PM »
I know, the guy only fulfilled himself but he didnt help his neighbors thus his act was NOT moral. It said that though the neighbors were grateful, his act was not moral which to me sounded like it adhered to the principle the closest. But who knows, maybe I'm crazy and my memory is shot.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2006, 06:49:49 PM »
yeah, I think that's what I put! Because the stim said that there were control groups of normal kids for the sugar types AND a substitute, so just saying the substitute makes them hyperactive doesn't weaken as much as the activity of observation, which affects ALL the kids, not just the ones who took the sub. Make any sense?
sorry i havent been payin attention to the other threads...was there any discussion on #9...what was the argument against the answer choice that talked about observing children blablabla already makes them hyperactie.

that was exactly my thinking on that problem...i hope it's right. lol

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2006, 06:50:46 PM »
yeah, I think that's what I put! Because the stim said that there were control groups of normal kids for the sugar types AND a substitute, so just saying the substitute makes them hyperactive doesn't weaken as much as the activity of observation, which affects ALL the kids, not just the ones who took the sub. Make any sense?
sorry i havent been payin attention to the other threads...was there any discussion on #9...what was the argument against the answer choice that talked about observing children blablabla already makes them hyperactie.
dont remember anything like that. But if artificial sugar made the kids hyper, then you can't disprove the fact that regular sugar makes them hyper based on the evidence that both groups behaved the same.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2006, 06:56:09 PM »
on #17...wasnt the whole point that...it wasnt 'really' controversial because those who are anti-environmentalists were in the majority...i dont think the answer posted is correct.

Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2006, 06:57:28 PM »
on #17...wasnt the whole point that...it wasnt 'really' controversial because those who are anti-environmentalists were in the majority...i dont think the answer posted is correct.
Yes it wasn't really going against political orthodoxy but all of that was irrelevant. The second sentence conceded that paper writers are not biased against environmentalism but are looking for controversial stories.

Harmonium

  • ****
  • 352
  • Schiedmayer
    • View Profile
Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2006, 06:58:21 PM »
 
yeah, I think that's what I put! Because the stim said that there were control groups of normal kids for the sugar types AND a substitute, so just saying the substitute makes them hyperactive doesn't weaken as much as the activity of observation, which affects ALL the kids, not just the ones who took the sub. Make any sense?
sorry i havent been payin attention to the other threads...was there any discussion on #9...what was the argument against the answer choice that talked about observing children blablabla already makes them hyperactie.
dont remember anything like that. But if artificial sugar made the kids hyper, then you can't disprove the fact that regular sugar makes them hyper based on the evidence that both groups behaved the same.


Harmonium

  • ****
  • 352
  • Schiedmayer
    • View Profile
Re: (Updated) LR PM (49/50)
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2006, 06:59:18 PM »
but I thought the stim said that there were controls groups (groups comprised of normal kids) for sugar AND the substitute. If that's the case. then even if the sub causes hyperactivity in that one control group, the study could still show that the ADD kids were more hyper than the normal kids who also consumed sugar. I thought the point was that ADD kids would have increased hyperactivity relative to normal kids their own age.