Law School Discussion

June 14 - LR Question - Help

nathanielmark

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2004, 11:11:41 AM »
So was D the answer with the regulation but not banning?  That's the answer I put...

sorry, yeah the answer was the one about regulation and banning, and i think it was D.

jg049457

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2004, 11:12:59 AM »
I also believe I put down something about cigarettes being addictive. I was 95% sure that this was correct. From what I recall about the stimulus and the answer choices, this was the only one that solved the apparant discrepancy in the statement. The others played with words like banning and regulation, but they still didn't solve the problem as to why it would be ok to ban/regulate one without the other. At least that's my two cents.

lexylit

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2004, 11:13:40 AM »
i remember no answer wowed me but two were plausible-- one was the principle that no advertising should be prevented but companies had a "moral obligation" to self-regulate or govt was morally obliged to regulate them? the moral thing troubled me. the other was maybe the one you guys are talking about, regulate vs. ban... i think the one that differentiated between addiction and fattiness was def. wrong

M2

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2004, 11:13:52 AM »
The others played with words like banning and regulation, but they still didn't solve the problem as to why it would be ok to ban/regulate one without the other. At least that's my two cents.

Thats what I was confused about as well...

nathanielmark

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2004, 11:14:38 AM »

yup.

i remember no answer wowed me but two were plausible-- one was the principle that no advertising should be prevented but companies had a "moral obligation" to self-regulate or govt was morally obliged to regulate them? the moral thing troubled me. the other was maybe the one you guys are talking about, regulate vs. ban... i think the one that differentiated between addiction and fattiness was def. wrong

robbief

  • ****
  • 207
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2004, 11:15:41 AM »
can anyone remember the wording of the banning/regulating one?

M2

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2004, 11:16:24 AM »

yup.

i remember no answer wowed me but two were plausible-- one was the principle that no advertising should be prevented but companies had a "moral obligation" to self-regulate or govt was morally obliged to regulate them? the moral thing troubled me. the other was maybe the one you guys are talking about, regulate vs. ban... i think the one that differentiated between addiction and fattiness was def. wrong

I really dont think the "moral obligation" answer was right.
The passage didn't address anythign to do with morality.

lexylit

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2004, 11:22:01 AM »
hey m2 are you a kerouach fanatic? theres a superfun story in the current new yorker about kesey, cassady etc you would probably get a big kick out of

as for the question, i probably likewise crossed it off for the moral piece, though i cant remember unless someone knows more of it

M2

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2004, 11:24:21 AM »
Yeh Im a big fan.

Thanks for the tip, I will see if I can find a copy.

nathanielmark

Re: June 14 - LR Question - Help
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2004, 11:27:23 AM »
I am about 99% sure that the major pardox was the guy saying that it was "right" to regulate something, yet it should remain legal.  right actually impies morality in the sense this guy was using it.

that being the case, the moral argument would certainly support his position.   i am not sure if morality was mentioned in the answer, but i know the right answer would make the guys position valid as it advocated government deterrence but allowed for keeping something legal.


hey m2 are you a kerouach fanatic? theres a superfun story in the current new yorker about kesey, cassady etc you would probably get a big kick out of

as for the question, i probably likewise crossed it off for the moral piece, though i cant remember unless someone knows more of it