Law School Discussion

LR sections

Re: LR section
« Reply #180 on: December 04, 2004, 05:11:08 PM »
Yes this is the answer - I think this was a discrepancy question - Knowing whether it would effect humans health was an after the fact irrelevancy.

tjordan90

  • ****
  • 130
  • 3.44 / 164
    • View Profile
Re: LR section
« Reply #181 on: December 04, 2004, 05:13:48 PM »
I saw someone mention the fossil discrepancy question way back, but no one else posted about it.

I had the answer down to A which was about the sun drying out bones and water harming them, or C, which was about the silt preserving the marine fossils. I ultimately went with the one about the sun destroying the bones because the silt to me doesn't resolve why there are not so many land fossils, especially given the huge numbers in which they outnumbered them. It explained why there were marine fossils, but didn't do anything to resolve the paradox of why there are so few land fossils. The info about the sun destroying bones would certainly explain the land animals lack of fossils, but then again, it doesn't explain why there are so many marine fossils...unless you're assuming that a certain percentage of remains should be fossilized if there are no extenuating circumstances, which is what I was thinking. Anyone else?

Hmmm, I was pretty sure that it was the silt preserving them.  I don't remember the question too well, but I thought that the sun one required you to make an unnecessary assumption of some sort and that the silt one would, contrary to what you claim, resolve both parts of the paradox.  There's few land fossils because there's no silt on land.  For the sun to be the answer, you would have to assume facts about exposure to the sun versus state-of-being-buried.

Praetor

  • ****
  • 517
  • Proud Canadian
    • View Profile
Re: LR section
« Reply #182 on: December 04, 2004, 05:14:56 PM »
I'm almost certain the answer was something like "marine fossils preserve better". Could be wrong, but I am almost certain.

Matthew_24_24

  • ****
  • 631
  • Sigh
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR section
« Reply #183 on: December 04, 2004, 05:15:01 PM »
fossils:

you have 10 - 100 times more land animals, but you find more marine fossils.  Explain why? 

Well, i think the silt explains why there are lots of marine fossils.  And because silt doesnt build up on land animals, it explains their lack too.  You could supposedly reverse that to explain the opposite way, but i think the actual fossilization process evidence weighs towards silt.

Matt

Re: LR section
« Reply #184 on: December 04, 2004, 05:16:22 PM »
Blue fin-- I seem to remember it being fairly easy once I eliminated the questions that did seem important... Are dioxine and blue fin the same question? Which one of those (or was it a separate Q) dealt with the company dumping waste downstream? Geez, it all blurs...the hardest I thought was Ice Age/Meteor question. I put something to the effect that it leaps from what has happened on average in the past to a specific prediction (near future--couldn't decide if that was specific or  not but went with it)..

I didn't have a time issue on any of the sections, surprisingly. Course, it could have been the four shots of espresso before the test (whoever suggested that, good idea! Along with wearing green, lol, anyone else follow that marine guy's suggestion? I passed up the run, but did do the hot/cold shower).

I'm curious as to how others came out on the tv/violence/advertising question, I'm pretty sure I got it wrong but I went with the answer that basically said he's using another study that really doesn't have anything to do with the other (or he assumes they do... .the wording was messed up though). I was tempted by something about behaviors and attitudes or something distinguishing behaviors from something.

The LR was by far more difficult than the prep tests I've completed... seemed to be out to play with our hands. But since the other sections were fairly standard/easy, I'm sure the scale will balance out to be similar to previous administrations.

ps--oop new posts!  Yup, i  put  the humans contact probs answer on blue fin, mmm hungry for seafood, anyone?

Praetor

  • ****
  • 517
  • Proud Canadian
    • View Profile
Re: LR section
« Reply #185 on: December 04, 2004, 05:18:41 PM »
Blue fin different question from Dioxin. You guys sure that wasn't in the experimental LR? I don't remember it at all.

Cory

  • ****
  • 113
  • Greatest. Game. EVER.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR section
« Reply #186 on: December 04, 2004, 05:19:17 PM »


Hmmm, I was pretty sure that it was the silt preserving them.  I don't remember the question too well, but I thought that the sun one required you to make an unnecessary assumption of some sort and that the silt one would, contrary to what you claim, resolve both parts of the paradox.  There's few land fossils because there's no silt on land.  For the sun to be the answer, you would have to assume facts about exposure to the sun versus state-of-being-buried.

Yeah, this is why I spent time debating both of them. I'm sure you guys are right, but under the pressure of the test, I was thinking that with C, you're assuming that fossils can't materialize unless there's silt.

Re: LR section
« Reply #187 on: December 04, 2004, 05:25:09 PM »
By the way what was the answer to the sufficient assumption question dealing with radio advertising - I had it down to two choices one starting with only and the other with "the only" and had to make a quick decision.

lookwhois

  • ****
  • 215
  • 3.63 / 168
    • View Profile
Re: LR section
« Reply #188 on: December 04, 2004, 05:28:25 PM »
fossils:

you have 10 - 100 times more land animals, but you find more marine fossils.  Explain why? 

Well, i think the silt explains why there are lots of marine fossils.  And because silt doesnt build up on land animals, it explains their lack too.  You could supposedly reverse that to explain the opposite way, but i think the actual fossilization process evidence weighs towards silt.

Matt

i agree, spent 2 minutes on this one.

tjordan90

  • ****
  • 130
  • 3.44 / 164
    • View Profile
Re: LR section
« Reply #189 on: December 04, 2004, 05:33:47 PM »

Yeah, this is why I spent time debating both of them. I'm sure you guys are right, but under the pressure of the test, I was thinking that with C, you're assuming that fossils can't materialize unless there's silt.

You know, I've reached the point in my LSAT studying where I am more interested in debating answers I answer incorrectly than trying to find the alleged correct answer.  I think that may mean I'm ready for law school.