I am attempting to understand something, the economic problem. It’s the banks fault that people took out mortgages they could not afford. It’s President Bush’s fault that the economy is messed up.
First off to those who blame the bank: SHUT UP. You took out the loan. The bank did not make you take the money. It is time for people for take some of the responsibility for themselves. We do not get to blame all of our problems on everyone else.
Second to those who want to blame President Bush: CHECK YOUR FACTS. The amount of income per family has not gone down it has actually increased. However during the Clinton era there was a large boom in HMOs which cost less. The problem was the HMOs did not provide quality health care, so people began to switch providers. These other providers cost more.
Clinton surplus vs. Bush deficit - http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Enjoy this article. Did Bush spend more money? Yes. He had to fund a couple of wars. Please do not debate the validity of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and still has two other major foreign issues on the horizon to deal with North Korea’s “satellite” and Iran’s “satellite”. Plus he has already increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan. So with these issues coming up what do you say we withhold judgment?
I am not judging Obama, we cannot do that yet. All the same we should watch where “our” stimulus money is going http://www.recovery.gov/ . Also, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html , some more good info on that package. Do not forget that any money the government gives us back like all previous stimulus packages, that money will be taxed in the future. The government will get it back. They government does not do anything for free.
Until Tomorrow
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Short Post
What have I been missing? It seems that with school and work that I have not been keeping up with this place. I will attempt to change that with shorter posts more often. I have been told by someone, my wife, that my posts are too long. This will just be a test as most of you know that I am very long winded.
So I am sitting at school now, about 20 minutes before my first exam of the semester. It feels like a milestone but it is really only the beginning of the end. The end of “I must get a degree” phase, which I hope will soon be followed by the “I get to actually get my second degree” phase. This will no doubt be followed by the “holy crap, I have to pay back how much for student loans” phase. This test should be easy. I may have mentioned before that I took a Journalism class so I could write more, however the only Journalism class on the planet with no writing is the class I selected. Oh well, it is just a filler class anyway.
So last night I got home from school at my normal time, around 9:30ish, and I was searching for something to eat. I came across some chicken and cheese taquitos, a great quick microwavable food. Here is where the taquitos bother me. They say there are two servings in a box, which is fine, but they put 15 in the box. Why not add one more freaking taquito? It is not like they would have to make the box bigger.
Until Tomorrow
So I am sitting at school now, about 20 minutes before my first exam of the semester. It feels like a milestone but it is really only the beginning of the end. The end of “I must get a degree” phase, which I hope will soon be followed by the “I get to actually get my second degree” phase. This will no doubt be followed by the “holy crap, I have to pay back how much for student loans” phase. This test should be easy. I may have mentioned before that I took a Journalism class so I could write more, however the only Journalism class on the planet with no writing is the class I selected. Oh well, it is just a filler class anyway.
So last night I got home from school at my normal time, around 9:30ish, and I was searching for something to eat. I came across some chicken and cheese taquitos, a great quick microwavable food. Here is where the taquitos bother me. They say there are two servings in a box, which is fine, but they put 15 in the box. Why not add one more freaking taquito? It is not like they would have to make the box bigger.
Until Tomorrow
Monday, February 16, 2009
The letters T and the D make different sounds
I feel I should apologize to my two readers for not posting for awhile. I do believe that damn LSAT took more out of me than I thought. Here are a couple of thoughts.
Number 1 is the title of the post. I understand the English language can be difficult to speak and to write. We have words that are spelled the same yet sound and mean something completely different. I also understand that I grew up in Oklahoma with a father that grew up in Texas. So yes, my vocabulary can at times be rather unique. My children on the other hand, spent time in Minnesota and until recently not enough time around me to screw up their speech. So I am left with one of two conclusions; either people from Minnesota are complete and utter morons or my children were dropped on their heads as babies. I am pretty sure my children were not dropped on their heads when they were young. Which leaves me with only one option, however if we do not mention it, people from Minnesota will not realize they are morons. On to the kid’s speech impediments, the princess pronounces her “Ts” like “Ds”. So “that” becomes “dhad” and “the” becomes “dhe”. One would wonder why this is so annoying, but you are going to have to take my word for it, it is. Both of them have extreme difficult with the two words: much and many. I know what you are thinking, what could be so hard about those two little words. I do not know. Here is a simple little quiz:
Which is correct?
a) When buying a new car there are many different options.
b) When buying a new car there are much different options.
My children for some reason always select option “b”. It seems that these two words are interchangeable. I am considering electric shock therapy. Would it be bad if I used the electrical outlet? I digress. Maybe I should move on to topic number two.
Topic number 2 comes from my work at the “evil empire.” This is going to require a lot of explanation for a short point but I have nothing else to do so here it is. At the “evil empire” work is divided up into what I refer to as silos. This is a very common practice, in which each silo has its own realm of responsibilities. This is not a bad thing because you create experts in a particular area and ideally that person is able to do the work efficiently and at a high level. This is the theory anyway. In practice however this is not the case. For example, I work in the SharePoint silo. My entire job is dedicated to SharePoint but only SharePoint. What follows is a very high level overview of my job. SharePoint is a single application that has a couple requirements: 1) the application must be run on a server (a really big computer, for the technically challenged); 2) a SQL server (a database application run on a separate server); 3) a monitoring product that scans the SharePoint environment and reports errors. Some of you may already be able to see where the problem with this system occurs. My application is 100% dependent on a minimum of three other teams, never a good thing. So here is what happened. We are having issues with server hardware failing and operating systems with errors left and right. So naturally the question has come up on my team on what we should do about it. We have had a number of meetings about these problems. There are really only two possible solutions: 1) We get the other teams to step up and do their jobs or 2) we go out of our way and completely reinvent the wheel. Guess which one the team has selected? Yep that is correct option number 2 because apparently responsibility and accountability do not apply to everyone. So now I am tasked with the incredibly stupid prospect of writing software to monitoring and report on our environment. Yes you read that correctly. I am tasked with building a new software program (one of which is already in place, except for the fact that apparently the team with responsibility for it are all complete morons, can we just get our own access to it and use it. Nope, that might be logical, we cannot have that). My teammates find it odd that I feel others should be accountable for work they are being paid to do. It would be a bad thing for us to question other teams, yet we are more than willing to bend over and do over and above what we are required to do for them. Oh well, I guess I will do their jobs and mine, too bad I cannot get paid for both jobs.
I cannot wait for yet another day in paradise.
Until Tomorrow
Number 1 is the title of the post. I understand the English language can be difficult to speak and to write. We have words that are spelled the same yet sound and mean something completely different. I also understand that I grew up in Oklahoma with a father that grew up in Texas. So yes, my vocabulary can at times be rather unique. My children on the other hand, spent time in Minnesota and until recently not enough time around me to screw up their speech. So I am left with one of two conclusions; either people from Minnesota are complete and utter morons or my children were dropped on their heads as babies. I am pretty sure my children were not dropped on their heads when they were young. Which leaves me with only one option, however if we do not mention it, people from Minnesota will not realize they are morons. On to the kid’s speech impediments, the princess pronounces her “Ts” like “Ds”. So “that” becomes “dhad” and “the” becomes “dhe”. One would wonder why this is so annoying, but you are going to have to take my word for it, it is. Both of them have extreme difficult with the two words: much and many. I know what you are thinking, what could be so hard about those two little words. I do not know. Here is a simple little quiz:
Which is correct?
a) When buying a new car there are many different options.
b) When buying a new car there are much different options.
My children for some reason always select option “b”. It seems that these two words are interchangeable. I am considering electric shock therapy. Would it be bad if I used the electrical outlet? I digress. Maybe I should move on to topic number two.
Topic number 2 comes from my work at the “evil empire.” This is going to require a lot of explanation for a short point but I have nothing else to do so here it is. At the “evil empire” work is divided up into what I refer to as silos. This is a very common practice, in which each silo has its own realm of responsibilities. This is not a bad thing because you create experts in a particular area and ideally that person is able to do the work efficiently and at a high level. This is the theory anyway. In practice however this is not the case. For example, I work in the SharePoint silo. My entire job is dedicated to SharePoint but only SharePoint. What follows is a very high level overview of my job. SharePoint is a single application that has a couple requirements: 1) the application must be run on a server (a really big computer, for the technically challenged); 2) a SQL server (a database application run on a separate server); 3) a monitoring product that scans the SharePoint environment and reports errors. Some of you may already be able to see where the problem with this system occurs. My application is 100% dependent on a minimum of three other teams, never a good thing. So here is what happened. We are having issues with server hardware failing and operating systems with errors left and right. So naturally the question has come up on my team on what we should do about it. We have had a number of meetings about these problems. There are really only two possible solutions: 1) We get the other teams to step up and do their jobs or 2) we go out of our way and completely reinvent the wheel. Guess which one the team has selected? Yep that is correct option number 2 because apparently responsibility and accountability do not apply to everyone. So now I am tasked with the incredibly stupid prospect of writing software to monitoring and report on our environment. Yes you read that correctly. I am tasked with building a new software program (one of which is already in place, except for the fact that apparently the team with responsibility for it are all complete morons, can we just get our own access to it and use it. Nope, that might be logical, we cannot have that). My teammates find it odd that I feel others should be accountable for work they are being paid to do. It would be a bad thing for us to question other teams, yet we are more than willing to bend over and do over and above what we are required to do for them. Oh well, I guess I will do their jobs and mine, too bad I cannot get paid for both jobs.
I cannot wait for yet another day in paradise.
Until Tomorrow
Sunday, February 8, 2009
My Saturday
I figured out what not to get myself for next year’s birthday. It is quite simple really, no LSAT exam. That is correct. I will never give myself a gift like that again. Some of you might actually be thinking, “hey that is not a bad gift, it gets you ready for the next step of your education.” To those of you that are thinking that: !@#$!@$#*@!#!@#$&!@(!@#)!@#*&!@#$&@$!@#$(@!$) you. It is a lot like having a root canal with the only difference being the only way to get to your mouth is through your @$$.
I shall explain a bit further. The LSAT is the Law School Admissions Test. Anyone who wants to go to law school must take this exam. Here is the exam:
There are 6 sections: (In no specific order, since it is different for everyone)
Each section has 23 to 27 questions and a 35 minute time limit. That should be plenty of time right? My @$$. Oh by the way there is one 15 break after section 3.
Here are the sections along with some sample questions. Give it a shot. Remember you have 1 minute 27 seconds for each question. The answers are at the end of the blog. The questions are not difficult themselves but add the time limit and you have a different ball game. Enjoy.
Section 1: Analytical Reasoning Questions or Logic Games
Eight dogs in an obedience class are learning to follow two commands—"heel" and "stay." Each dog is either a shepherd, a retriever, or a terrier, and each of these three breeds is represented at least once among the group. All female dogs in the group are retrievers. The results of the first lesson are as follows:
At least two of the dogs have learned to follow the "heel" command, but not the "stay" command.
At least two of the dogs have learned to follow the "stay" command, but not the "heel" command.
At least one of the dogs has learned to follow both commands.
Among the eight dogs, only terriers have learned to follow the "stay" command.
1. Which of the following statements CANNOT be true?
(A) The group includes more females than males.
(B) The group includes fewer terriers than shepherds.
(C) The group includes more shepherds than retrievers.
(D) More of the dogs have learned to stay than to heel.
(E) More of the dogs have learned to heel than to stay.
2. If each dog has learned to follow at least one of the two commands, all of the following must true EXCEPT:
(A) All retrievers have learned to heel.
(B) All shepherds have learned to heel.
(C) All terriers have learned to stay.
(D) No retriever has learned to stay.
(E) No shepherd has learned to stay.
3. If four of the dogs are male and four of the dogs are female, all of the following must be true EXCEPT:
(A) One of the dogs is a shepherd.
(B) Four of the dogs are retrievers.
(C) Three of the dogs are terriers.
(D) Three of the dogs have learned to stay.
(E) Four of the dogs have learned to heel.
4. If the group includes more shepherds than terriers, the minimum number of male dogs among the group that have learned to heel is
(A) 0
(B) 1
(C) 2
(D) 3
(E) 4
5. If each dog has learned to follow at least one of the two commands, and if two of the dogs have learned to heel but not stay, it could be true that
(A) Two of the dogs are female
(B) All of the dogs are male
(C) Only one male dog has learned to heel
(D) One female dog has learned to stay
(E) Two of the dogs are retrievers
Section 2: Logical Reasoning Questions
1. People should be held accountable for their own behavior, and if holding people accountable for their own behavior entails capital punishment, then so be it. However, no person should be held accountable for behavior over which he or she had no control.
Which of the following is the most logical conclusion of the argument above?
(A) People should not be held accountable for the behavior of other people.
(B) People have control over their own behavior.
(C) People cannot control the behavior of other people.
(D) Behavior that cannot be controlled should not be punished.
(E) People have control over behavior that is subject to capital punishment.
2. As any economist knows, healthy people pose less of an economic burden to society than unhealthy people. Not surprisingly, then, every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save taxpayers of this state three dollars.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the statistics cited above are not surprising?
(A) The state's taxpayers pay for prenatal care of all immigrants.
(B) Babies born in this state to undocumented immigrant parents are entitled to infant care benefits from the state.
(C) State benefits for prenatal care serve to promote undocumented immigration.
(D) Babies whose mothers did not receive prenatal care are just as healthy as other babies.
(E) Pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care are more likely to experience health problems than other pregnant women.
3. Beautiful beaches attract people, no doubt about it. Just look at this city's beautiful beaches, which are among the most overcrowded beaches in the state.
Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to the one exhibited in the argument above?
(A) Moose and bear usually appear at the same drinking hole at the same time of day. Therefore, moose and bear must grow thirsty at about the same time.
(B) Children who are scolded severely tend to misbehave more often than other children. Hence if a child is not scolded severely that child is less likely to misbehave.
(C) This software program helps increase the work efficiency of its users. As a result, these users have more free time for other activities.
(D) During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas more so than during cooler weather. Therefore, fleas must thrive in a warm environment.
(E) Pesticides are known to cause anemia in some people. However, most anemic people live in regions where pesticides are not commonly used.
4. Our school district should not spend its money on the new Verbal Advantage reading program. After all, our students get all the reading practice they need by studying history and science.
The argument above depends on which the following assumptions?
(A) The Verbal Advantage program would not help the students learn history and science.
(B) Other reading programs are just as effective but less expensive than the Verbal Advantage program.
(C) The Verbal Advantage program involves only reading practice.
(D) Teaching students history and science is more important than teaching them reading skills.
(E) The students can already read well enough to study history and science.
5. Newspaper publishers earn their profits primarily from advertising revenue, and potential advertisers are more likely to advertise in newspapers with a wide circulation—a large number of subscribers and other readers—than with other newspapers. But the circulation of the newspaper that is currently the most profitable one in this city has steadily declined during the last two years, while the circulation of one of its competitors has steadily increased.
Any of the following, if true, would help explain the apparent discrepancy between the two statements above EXCEPT:
(A) Advertisers generally switch from the most widely circulated newspaper to another one only when the other one becomes the most widely circulated newspaper instead.
(B) Advertising rates charged by the most profitable newspaper in the city are significantly higher than those charged by its competitors.
(C) The most profitable newspaper in the city receives revenue from its subscribers as well from advertisers.
(D) The circulation of the most profitable newspaper in the city is still greater than than of any of its competitors.
(E) The number of newspapers competing viably with the most profitable newspaper in the city has increased during the last two years.
Section 3: Logical Reasoning Questions – This is the same as the section above. Apparently one section is not enough. This is not experimental, this is by design.
Section 4: Reading Comprehension Questions:
The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationismis the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism thatconceives nature and humankind as radically distinct andopposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism hasfor some time figured prominently in the unhappiness ofenvironmentalists with mainstream industrial society, asin the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves—particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offerlittle evidence to support this indictment. In their view, preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-setas the industrial mainstream, the only difference beingthat the latter exalts humans over nature while the formerelevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzlingthat Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logicthat requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning forpreservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relent-lessness of their attack on preservationists, accentu-ated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticismof those who have plundered the natural world.... The crucial question, however, about the restorationistoutlook has to do with the degree to which the restora-tionist program is itself faithful to the first principle ofrestoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentallyunited rather than separate. Rejecting the old dominationmodel, which sees humans as over nature, restorationtheory champions a model of community participation. Yetsome of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give ofwhat restorationists are actually up to—for example,Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation,"or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of thebiosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationshipwith it"—do not cohere well with the community partici-pation model.... Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as anorganism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model picturesnature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamentaldifference, however, is that in an organism the parts arewholly subservient to the life of the organism. If wecould think of the biosphere as a single living organismand could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), orcontrol center, we would have a model that more closelyfits the restorationists' view.... However, to consider humans as the control center ofthe living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role innature. Is this significantly different from the old-fashioned domination model? In both systems humans holdthe place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope andrange of legitimate human manipulation in the world. Thisdoes not mean that there are no constraints; onlybeneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it doesnot mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel isthat, because the fate of the world rests on humans, theymust have a clear idea of what needs to be done.
1. The author's primary purpose in the passage is to
(A) examine the similarities and differences among models for environmental philosophies
(B) formulate a new philosophical model of the relationship between humans and their environment
(C) critique a modern-day environmental philosophy
(D) argue that one particular environmental philosophy is more workable than competing approaches
(E) demonstrate the limited usefulness of models as the basis for environmental philosophies
2. The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists
(A) are not critical enough of those who have plundered the natural world
(B) base their ideas on an unhealthy dualism
(C) have the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream
(D) have been unfairly criticized by restorationists
(E) have been faithful to the principles upon which their ideas are based
3. Which of the following best expresses the function of the first paragraph in relation to the passage as a whole?
(A) to establish the parameters of an ensuing debate
(B) to identify problem areas within a school of thought, which are then explored in greater detail
(C) to discuss secondary issues as a prelude to a more detailed examination of a primary issue
(D) to provide an historical backdrop for a discussion of modern-day issues
(E) to introduce opposing viewpoints, which are then evaluated
4. In asserting that the organic model might be "more serviceable to the restorationists" (line 36), the author implies that
(A) the descriptions by Turner and Jordan of the restorationists' program conform more closely to the organic model than to the communityparticipation model
(B) the organic model is more consistent than the community participation model with the principle of restoration
(C) the organic model is more consistent with the storationists' agenda than with the preservationists' program
(D) holistic models are more useful than the dualist model to the restorationists
(E) the organic model, unlike the community participation model, represents nature as a system of interconnected parts
5. Which of the following models would the author most likely agree is least like the other models listed below?
(A) domination model
(B) holistic model
(C) community participation model
(D) dualist model
(E) organic model
6. Which of the following best expresses the author's primary criticism of the restorationists?
(A) They fail to recognize any limits as to the scope of legitimate human manipulation of nature.
(B) They assign to humans a controlling role in the world.
(C) They reject the most workable model for the relationship between humans and nature.
(D) Their critique of preservationism is not well supported.
(E) Their program does not coincide with their principles.
Section 5: An Experiential section comprised of one of the other sections, no you do not know which on this is. For example I had to sections of Logic Games; therefore one of them was the experimental section. I am sure they will take the section I did worse on and choose the other as the experimental section.
Section 6: This is a writing section. You are give two sides of an argument and must pick on and defend it. This would be an incredibly easy section if not for the previous 3 hours of testing.
Answers:
Section 1:
Question 1—Analysis
The correct response to Question 1 is (A). At least three dogs are terriers, all of which are male. At least one dog must be a shepherd, and all shepherds are male. Thus, at least four dogs must be male, and so it is not possible for there to be more females than males among the group. Statement (A) must be false.
Question 2—Analysis
The correct response to Question 2 is (C). All dogs other than terriers must have learned to heel but not stay, because all dogs that have learned to stay are terriers. Thus, all retrievers and all shepherds have learned to heel but not stay, and statements (A), (B), (D), and (E) must all be true. However, it is possible for a terrier to have learned to heel but not stay; thus, statement (C) is not necessarily true.
Question 3—Analysis
The correct response to Question 3 is (E). Since all females must be retrievers, terriers and shepherds must all be male. There must be at least one dog of each breed among the group, and so one dog must be a shepherd, and three dogs must be terriers. (The remaining four dogs must be retrievers.) Thus, statements (A), (B), and (C) must be true. If a dog has learned to stay, the dog must be a terrier; thus, three dogs have learned to stay, and statement (D) must be true. Although at least three dogs have learned to heel, it is possible that as many as three dogs have learned neither to heel nor to stay. Thus, statement (E) is not necessarily true.
Question 4—Analysis
The correct response to Question 4 is (C). At least three dogs must be terriers. Since each breed of dog must be represented at least once among the group, one of the dogs must be a retriever, and the remaining four dogs must be shepherds. One of the three terriers (all of which are male) has learned to heel. All four shepherds are male, and at least one the four shepherds has learned to heel; otherwise, only three of the dogs at most could be shepherds. Thus, a minimum of two male dogs must have learned to heel.
Question 5—Analysis
The correct response to Question 5 is (B). All dogs other than the two that have learned to heel but not stay must have learned to stay. All of those dogs (six in total) must be terriers and thus must be male (see general comments above). Since each breed must be represented among the group, of the two remaining dogs one must be a shepherd while the other must be a retriever. Both the shepherd and the retriever must have learned to heel but not stay. The shepherd must be male, although the retriever could be either male or female.
Section 2:
Question 1—Analysis
The correct response to Question 1 is (B). The argument includes the following two premises:
Premise: People are accountable for their own behavior.
Premise: People are not accountable for behavior they cannot control.
Here's the logical conclusion based on these two premises:
Conclusion: People can control their own behavior.
(A) would require that people never have control over the behavior of other people. Yet the argument does not provide this premise.
(C) would require that people should not be held accountable for the behavior of other people. Yet the argument does not provide this premise.
(D) is not a conclusion; (D) simply reiterates one of the argument's premises (the second sentence).
(E) is not inferable. The argument allows for the possibility that a person might not have control over another person's behavior which is subject to capital punishment.
Question 2—Analysis
The correct response to Question 2 is (E). The argument relies on the unstated assumption that prenatal care results in better health and therefore less cost to society. (E) helps affirm this assumption.
(A) is irrelevant to the argument, which makes no distinction between undocumented immigrants and other immigrants.
(B) describes benefits that might decrease the overall tax burden, but only if the prenatal care program serves to reduce the amount of infant-care benefits paid. The argument does not inform us whether this is the case. Thus it is impossible to assess the extent to which (B) would explain how the prenatal care would save the taxpayers money.
(C) actually renders the statistics more surprising, by providing evidence that prenatal care will add to society's economic burden.
(D) also renders the statistics more surprising, by providing evidence that the cost of the prenatal care program will not be offset by a particular health benefit—a benefit which would lessen the taxpayers' economic burden.
Question 3—Analysis
The correct response to Question 3 is (D). The original argument bases a conclusion that one phenomenon causes another on an observed correlation between the two phenomena. The argument boils down to the following:
Premise: X (beautiful beach) is correlated with Y (crowd of people).
Conclusion: X (beautiful beach) causes Y (crowd of people).
Answer choice (D) demonstrates the same pattern of reasoning:
Premise: X (warm weather) is correlated with Y (fleas).
Conclusion: X (warm weather) causes Y (fleas).
(A) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (moose at the drinking hole) is correlated with Y (bears at the drinking hole).
Conclusion: X (moose) and Y (bear) are both caused by Z (thirst).
(B) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (scolding children) is correlated with Y (misbehavior among children).
Assumption: Either X causes Y, or Y causes X.
Conclusion: Not X (no scolding) will be correlated with not Y (no misbehavior).
(C) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (software program) causes Y (efficiency).
Assumption: Y (efficiency) causes Z (free time).
Conclusion: X (software program) causes Z (free time).
(E) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument. In fact, (E) is not a complete argument; it contains two premises but no conclusion:
Premise: X (pesticides) causes Y (anemia).
Premise: Not X (pesticide-free regions) is correlated with Y (anemia).
Question 4—Analysis
The correct response to Question 4 is (C). The argument boils down to the following, including the unstated assumption provided by (C):
Premise: Students get enough reading practice already.
Unstated assumption (C): The reading program provides only reading practice.
Conclusion: The reading program is unnecessary.
(A) is not a necessary assumption. The argument is not concerned with whether improved reading skills would help the students learn history and science. Rather, the argument involves whether the new program would help improve reading skills.
(B) is not a necessary assumption. The argument is that no additional reading practice is needed, regardless of which program provides that practice.
(D) is not a necessary assumption. The argument does not aim to compare the importance of one discipline over another.
(E) is not a necessary assumption. The argument is not concerned with whether improved reading skills would help the students learn history and science. Rather, the argument involves whether the new program would help improve reading skills.
Question 5—Analysis
The correct response to Question 5 is (E). Assuming the number of viable competitors has increased during the last two years, the likely result would be to draw circulation away from already viable newspapers, including the most profitable one. Given that profitability depends primarily on advertising revenues and therefore on circulation, (E) actually exacerbates the discrepancy between the two statements.
(A) and (D) help explain why the most profitable newspaper remains most profitable even though its circulation is declining: Advertisers have not yet begun to switch because the most profitable newspaper is still the most widely circulated.
(B) helps explain the discrepancy. Although the argument provides that advertisers are more likely to advertise with widely circulated newspapers than with others, it is entirely possible that other factors, such as advertising rates that a newspaper charges, also affect which newspapers advertisers choose.
(C) helps explain the discrepancy, by identifying another source of revenue and therefore another means of enhancing profitability. Simply stated, the more sources of revenue the more profitable a newspaper is likely to be. This in turn helps explain why the most profitable newspaper in the city remains the most profitable one, despite declining circulation. Admittedly, as circulation decreases so does subscriber revenue, and thus overall profitability. Yet the newspaper's profitability is still greater than it would be without revenue from its subscribers.
Section 4:
Question 1—Analysis
The correct response to Question 1 is (C). Although the passage does digress in the last paragraph (suggesting a possible transition to another area of discussion), the passage is devoted mainly to a critical analysis of the restorationists' environmental philosophy, as exemplified by Turner and Jordan.
(A) is too narrow. Admittedly, the author does discuss (in the third and fourth paragraphs) the similarities and differences between the organic and community participation models. While response (A) would appear to encompass this discussion, (A) does not embrace the author's larger purpose: to critique the restorationist philosophy.
(B) is too narrow and is not well supported. Admittedly, the author does introduce (in the third paragraph) an alternative model—i.e., the organic model. However, the author's limited purpose in introducing the organic model is to underscore the author's broader point that the restorationists' program is inconsistent with their principles. Moreover, the author makes no claim to having formulated the organic model or that it is a "new" model, as (B) suggests.
(D) distorts the author's purpose. Admittedly, the author does explore the possibility that a model other than the community participation model might more accurately reflect the restorationists' agenda. However, the author's point here is that another model might be more consistent with the restorationists' program, not that one particular model is more workable or otherwise preferable for everyone. For all the reader knows, the author might be a mainstream industrialist who opposes all pro-environment policies.
(E) calls for an unwarranted inference as to the author's purpose. Based upon the last paragraph, the passage might conceivably continue by asserting that all environmental models are problematic and therefore of limited usefulness. However, whether the author would continue in this vein is speculative. Since the passage itself does not include such a discussion, (E) is not a viable response.
Question 2—Analysis
The correct response to Question 2 is (D). In the first paragraph, the author asserts that a preservationist need not have a dualist view, and therefore the argument of Turner and Jordan that the preservationists are also "unhealthy" dualists is an unfair claim. Response (D) is also supported later in the first paragraph, where the author criticizes Turner and Jordan for the "sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists." The author implies that other groups (e.g., "those who have plundered the natural world") are more deserving of sharp criticism than the preservationists. In this sense as well, then, the author would probably agree that Turner and Jordan have unfairly criticized the preservationists.
(A) confuses the information in the passage. The author suggests that it is the restorationists such as Turner and Jordan (not the preservationists) who are not critical enough of those that have plundered the natural world.
(B) and (C) confuse the author's viewpoint with the viewpoint of others mentioned in the passage. It is the restorationists, not the author, who claim that the preservationists base their ideas on an unhealthy dualism and who suffer from the same mind-set as the industrial mainstream.
(E) confuses the information in the passage and calls for speculation. First, the crucial question that the author poses (in lines 22-25) is whether the restorationists, not the preservationists, have been faithful to their principles. Second, although the author asserts that the restorationists have not been faithful to their principle, it is unfair to infer that the preservationists have been faithful to theirs.
Question 3—Analysis
The correct response to Question 3 is (C). The author refers in the first sentence of the second paragraph to the "crucial question," signaling that the primary concern of the passage is to follow. Accordingly, the first paragraph introduces the topic by discussing non-crucial questions.
(A) is wholly unsupported and runs contrary to the passage. Although the first paragraph does establish parameters insofar as it identifies the topic of the passage, in no sense does it identify which issues are subject to debate and which are not. To the contrary, the primary issue (whether the restorationists have been faithful to their own principle) is not even mentioned in the first paragraph.
(B) is only partially supported. Although in the first paragraph the author does indeed identify some problems with the restorationist critique of preservationism, rather than exploring these problems in greater detail, the author turns in subsequent paragraphs to another, more "crucial," problem.
(D) distorts the information in the passage. Although the author does include some "historical" background insofar as the environmentalists' unhappiness with mainstream industrial society (lines 5-6) is mentioned using the past tense, aside from this single reference to past events, the first paragraph speaks in terms of the present day.
(E) distorts the overall structure. The first paragraph does not really discuss opposing viewpoints but rather critiques one viewpoint: the restorationists' view of preservationism. Moreover, in subsequent paragraphs, the author makes no attempt to evaluate this viewpoint.
Question 4—Analysis
The correct response to Question 4 is (A). In the preceding sentence, the author asserts that Turner's and Jordan's descriptions of restorationist activites "do not cohere well with the community participation model." By following this assertion with the suggestion that another model might be more serviceable, it is reasonably inferable that restorationists' activities are more consistent with this other model than with the community participation model.
(B) confuses the information in this portion of the passage. The author is concerned with which model more closely conforms to the restorationists' program, not which model better conforms to their principle.
(C) confuses the information in the passage—specifically, by bringing in irrelevant information. The author is not concerned at all in this portion of the passage with the preservationists. No attempt is made here or anywhere else in the passage to relate the organic model to the preservationists' program.
(D) is somewhat consistent with the information in the passage, but it does not respond to the question. The author does identify the organic model as one type of "holistic" model; however, the author asserts that it may be more serviceable than another holistic model (i.e., the community participation model), not the dualist model (which is not a holistic model).
(E) is partially supported by the passage, but (E) also contradicts the passage. The author does indeed assert that the organic model represents nature as a system of interconnected parts. However, according to the author, so does the community participation model (lines 37-39).
Question 5—Analysis
The correct response to Question 5 is (D). The author finds some point of similarity among all other models mentioned (see below). Therefore, by elimination, (D) is the best response.
(A), (B), and (E) are not viable. The author points out (see last paragraph) several parallels between the organic model (a holistic model) and the domination model.
(C) is not a viable response, since the author points out in the third paragraph that the community participation and organic models both picture nature as a system of interconnected parts. For this additional reason, (E) is also not viable.
Question 6—Analysis
The correct response to Question 6 is (E). The "crucial" (primary) question for the author involves the degree to which the restorationists are true to their first principle (lines 22-26). The author then claims that they are not so true in that their program "does not cohere well" with their principle (lines 33-34). Since this issue is "crucial" to the author, it is reasonable to assert that this criticism is the author's "primary" one.
(D) is the second-best response. Although the author does indeed criticize the restorationists on this count (in the first paragraph), this criticism is not the author's "primary" one, since the author raises and answers a more "crucial question" in the second paragraph.
(A) and (B) are supportable statements, but they do not respond to the question. Although the author ascribes the characteristics mentioned in (A) and (B) to the restorationists (as well as to the dominationists), the author does not identify this characteristic as a point of criticism.
(C) is unsupported by the information in the passage. The author neither states nor implies that one model is more workable than others (except insofar as one model might be more appropriate than another for a particular school of thought) or which model that would be. In addition, although the passage is clear that the restorationists have embraced the community participation model, the passage is not at all explicit that they have "rejected" any particular other model (except for the dualist model).
I shall explain a bit further. The LSAT is the Law School Admissions Test. Anyone who wants to go to law school must take this exam. Here is the exam:
There are 6 sections: (In no specific order, since it is different for everyone)
Each section has 23 to 27 questions and a 35 minute time limit. That should be plenty of time right? My @$$. Oh by the way there is one 15 break after section 3.
Here are the sections along with some sample questions. Give it a shot. Remember you have 1 minute 27 seconds for each question. The answers are at the end of the blog. The questions are not difficult themselves but add the time limit and you have a different ball game. Enjoy.
Section 1: Analytical Reasoning Questions or Logic Games
Eight dogs in an obedience class are learning to follow two commands—"heel" and "stay." Each dog is either a shepherd, a retriever, or a terrier, and each of these three breeds is represented at least once among the group. All female dogs in the group are retrievers. The results of the first lesson are as follows:
At least two of the dogs have learned to follow the "heel" command, but not the "stay" command.
At least two of the dogs have learned to follow the "stay" command, but not the "heel" command.
At least one of the dogs has learned to follow both commands.
Among the eight dogs, only terriers have learned to follow the "stay" command.
1. Which of the following statements CANNOT be true?
(A) The group includes more females than males.
(B) The group includes fewer terriers than shepherds.
(C) The group includes more shepherds than retrievers.
(D) More of the dogs have learned to stay than to heel.
(E) More of the dogs have learned to heel than to stay.
2. If each dog has learned to follow at least one of the two commands, all of the following must true EXCEPT:
(A) All retrievers have learned to heel.
(B) All shepherds have learned to heel.
(C) All terriers have learned to stay.
(D) No retriever has learned to stay.
(E) No shepherd has learned to stay.
3. If four of the dogs are male and four of the dogs are female, all of the following must be true EXCEPT:
(A) One of the dogs is a shepherd.
(B) Four of the dogs are retrievers.
(C) Three of the dogs are terriers.
(D) Three of the dogs have learned to stay.
(E) Four of the dogs have learned to heel.
4. If the group includes more shepherds than terriers, the minimum number of male dogs among the group that have learned to heel is
(A) 0
(B) 1
(C) 2
(D) 3
(E) 4
5. If each dog has learned to follow at least one of the two commands, and if two of the dogs have learned to heel but not stay, it could be true that
(A) Two of the dogs are female
(B) All of the dogs are male
(C) Only one male dog has learned to heel
(D) One female dog has learned to stay
(E) Two of the dogs are retrievers
Section 2: Logical Reasoning Questions
1. People should be held accountable for their own behavior, and if holding people accountable for their own behavior entails capital punishment, then so be it. However, no person should be held accountable for behavior over which he or she had no control.
Which of the following is the most logical conclusion of the argument above?
(A) People should not be held accountable for the behavior of other people.
(B) People have control over their own behavior.
(C) People cannot control the behavior of other people.
(D) Behavior that cannot be controlled should not be punished.
(E) People have control over behavior that is subject to capital punishment.
2. As any economist knows, healthy people pose less of an economic burden to society than unhealthy people. Not surprisingly, then, every dollar our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save taxpayers of this state three dollars.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the statistics cited above are not surprising?
(A) The state's taxpayers pay for prenatal care of all immigrants.
(B) Babies born in this state to undocumented immigrant parents are entitled to infant care benefits from the state.
(C) State benefits for prenatal care serve to promote undocumented immigration.
(D) Babies whose mothers did not receive prenatal care are just as healthy as other babies.
(E) Pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care are more likely to experience health problems than other pregnant women.
3. Beautiful beaches attract people, no doubt about it. Just look at this city's beautiful beaches, which are among the most overcrowded beaches in the state.
Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to the one exhibited in the argument above?
(A) Moose and bear usually appear at the same drinking hole at the same time of day. Therefore, moose and bear must grow thirsty at about the same time.
(B) Children who are scolded severely tend to misbehave more often than other children. Hence if a child is not scolded severely that child is less likely to misbehave.
(C) This software program helps increase the work efficiency of its users. As a result, these users have more free time for other activities.
(D) During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas more so than during cooler weather. Therefore, fleas must thrive in a warm environment.
(E) Pesticides are known to cause anemia in some people. However, most anemic people live in regions where pesticides are not commonly used.
4. Our school district should not spend its money on the new Verbal Advantage reading program. After all, our students get all the reading practice they need by studying history and science.
The argument above depends on which the following assumptions?
(A) The Verbal Advantage program would not help the students learn history and science.
(B) Other reading programs are just as effective but less expensive than the Verbal Advantage program.
(C) The Verbal Advantage program involves only reading practice.
(D) Teaching students history and science is more important than teaching them reading skills.
(E) The students can already read well enough to study history and science.
5. Newspaper publishers earn their profits primarily from advertising revenue, and potential advertisers are more likely to advertise in newspapers with a wide circulation—a large number of subscribers and other readers—than with other newspapers. But the circulation of the newspaper that is currently the most profitable one in this city has steadily declined during the last two years, while the circulation of one of its competitors has steadily increased.
Any of the following, if true, would help explain the apparent discrepancy between the two statements above EXCEPT:
(A) Advertisers generally switch from the most widely circulated newspaper to another one only when the other one becomes the most widely circulated newspaper instead.
(B) Advertising rates charged by the most profitable newspaper in the city are significantly higher than those charged by its competitors.
(C) The most profitable newspaper in the city receives revenue from its subscribers as well from advertisers.
(D) The circulation of the most profitable newspaper in the city is still greater than than of any of its competitors.
(E) The number of newspapers competing viably with the most profitable newspaper in the city has increased during the last two years.
Section 3: Logical Reasoning Questions – This is the same as the section above. Apparently one section is not enough. This is not experimental, this is by design.
Section 4: Reading Comprehension Questions:
The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationismis the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism thatconceives nature and humankind as radically distinct andopposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism hasfor some time figured prominently in the unhappiness ofenvironmentalists with mainstream industrial society, asin the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves—particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offerlittle evidence to support this indictment. In their view, preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-setas the industrial mainstream, the only difference beingthat the latter exalts humans over nature while the formerelevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzlingthat Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logicthat requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning forpreservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relent-lessness of their attack on preservationists, accentu-ated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticismof those who have plundered the natural world.... The crucial question, however, about the restorationistoutlook has to do with the degree to which the restora-tionist program is itself faithful to the first principle ofrestoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentallyunited rather than separate. Rejecting the old dominationmodel, which sees humans as over nature, restorationtheory champions a model of community participation. Yetsome of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give ofwhat restorationists are actually up to—for example,Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation,"or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of thebiosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationshipwith it"—do not cohere well with the community partici-pation model.... Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as anorganism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model picturesnature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamentaldifference, however, is that in an organism the parts arewholly subservient to the life of the organism. If wecould think of the biosphere as a single living organismand could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), orcontrol center, we would have a model that more closelyfits the restorationists' view.... However, to consider humans as the control center ofthe living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role innature. Is this significantly different from the old-fashioned domination model? In both systems humans holdthe place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope andrange of legitimate human manipulation in the world. Thisdoes not mean that there are no constraints; onlybeneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it doesnot mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel isthat, because the fate of the world rests on humans, theymust have a clear idea of what needs to be done.
1. The author's primary purpose in the passage is to
(A) examine the similarities and differences among models for environmental philosophies
(B) formulate a new philosophical model of the relationship between humans and their environment
(C) critique a modern-day environmental philosophy
(D) argue that one particular environmental philosophy is more workable than competing approaches
(E) demonstrate the limited usefulness of models as the basis for environmental philosophies
2. The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists
(A) are not critical enough of those who have plundered the natural world
(B) base their ideas on an unhealthy dualism
(C) have the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream
(D) have been unfairly criticized by restorationists
(E) have been faithful to the principles upon which their ideas are based
3. Which of the following best expresses the function of the first paragraph in relation to the passage as a whole?
(A) to establish the parameters of an ensuing debate
(B) to identify problem areas within a school of thought, which are then explored in greater detail
(C) to discuss secondary issues as a prelude to a more detailed examination of a primary issue
(D) to provide an historical backdrop for a discussion of modern-day issues
(E) to introduce opposing viewpoints, which are then evaluated
4. In asserting that the organic model might be "more serviceable to the restorationists" (line 36), the author implies that
(A) the descriptions by Turner and Jordan of the restorationists' program conform more closely to the organic model than to the communityparticipation model
(B) the organic model is more consistent than the community participation model with the principle of restoration
(C) the organic model is more consistent with the storationists' agenda than with the preservationists' program
(D) holistic models are more useful than the dualist model to the restorationists
(E) the organic model, unlike the community participation model, represents nature as a system of interconnected parts
5. Which of the following models would the author most likely agree is least like the other models listed below?
(A) domination model
(B) holistic model
(C) community participation model
(D) dualist model
(E) organic model
6. Which of the following best expresses the author's primary criticism of the restorationists?
(A) They fail to recognize any limits as to the scope of legitimate human manipulation of nature.
(B) They assign to humans a controlling role in the world.
(C) They reject the most workable model for the relationship between humans and nature.
(D) Their critique of preservationism is not well supported.
(E) Their program does not coincide with their principles.
Section 5: An Experiential section comprised of one of the other sections, no you do not know which on this is. For example I had to sections of Logic Games; therefore one of them was the experimental section. I am sure they will take the section I did worse on and choose the other as the experimental section.
Section 6: This is a writing section. You are give two sides of an argument and must pick on and defend it. This would be an incredibly easy section if not for the previous 3 hours of testing.
Answers:
Section 1:
Question 1—Analysis
The correct response to Question 1 is (A). At least three dogs are terriers, all of which are male. At least one dog must be a shepherd, and all shepherds are male. Thus, at least four dogs must be male, and so it is not possible for there to be more females than males among the group. Statement (A) must be false.
Question 2—Analysis
The correct response to Question 2 is (C). All dogs other than terriers must have learned to heel but not stay, because all dogs that have learned to stay are terriers. Thus, all retrievers and all shepherds have learned to heel but not stay, and statements (A), (B), (D), and (E) must all be true. However, it is possible for a terrier to have learned to heel but not stay; thus, statement (C) is not necessarily true.
Question 3—Analysis
The correct response to Question 3 is (E). Since all females must be retrievers, terriers and shepherds must all be male. There must be at least one dog of each breed among the group, and so one dog must be a shepherd, and three dogs must be terriers. (The remaining four dogs must be retrievers.) Thus, statements (A), (B), and (C) must be true. If a dog has learned to stay, the dog must be a terrier; thus, three dogs have learned to stay, and statement (D) must be true. Although at least three dogs have learned to heel, it is possible that as many as three dogs have learned neither to heel nor to stay. Thus, statement (E) is not necessarily true.
Question 4—Analysis
The correct response to Question 4 is (C). At least three dogs must be terriers. Since each breed of dog must be represented at least once among the group, one of the dogs must be a retriever, and the remaining four dogs must be shepherds. One of the three terriers (all of which are male) has learned to heel. All four shepherds are male, and at least one the four shepherds has learned to heel; otherwise, only three of the dogs at most could be shepherds. Thus, a minimum of two male dogs must have learned to heel.
Question 5—Analysis
The correct response to Question 5 is (B). All dogs other than the two that have learned to heel but not stay must have learned to stay. All of those dogs (six in total) must be terriers and thus must be male (see general comments above). Since each breed must be represented among the group, of the two remaining dogs one must be a shepherd while the other must be a retriever. Both the shepherd and the retriever must have learned to heel but not stay. The shepherd must be male, although the retriever could be either male or female.
Section 2:
Question 1—Analysis
The correct response to Question 1 is (B). The argument includes the following two premises:
Premise: People are accountable for their own behavior.
Premise: People are not accountable for behavior they cannot control.
Here's the logical conclusion based on these two premises:
Conclusion: People can control their own behavior.
(A) would require that people never have control over the behavior of other people. Yet the argument does not provide this premise.
(C) would require that people should not be held accountable for the behavior of other people. Yet the argument does not provide this premise.
(D) is not a conclusion; (D) simply reiterates one of the argument's premises (the second sentence).
(E) is not inferable. The argument allows for the possibility that a person might not have control over another person's behavior which is subject to capital punishment.
Question 2—Analysis
The correct response to Question 2 is (E). The argument relies on the unstated assumption that prenatal care results in better health and therefore less cost to society. (E) helps affirm this assumption.
(A) is irrelevant to the argument, which makes no distinction between undocumented immigrants and other immigrants.
(B) describes benefits that might decrease the overall tax burden, but only if the prenatal care program serves to reduce the amount of infant-care benefits paid. The argument does not inform us whether this is the case. Thus it is impossible to assess the extent to which (B) would explain how the prenatal care would save the taxpayers money.
(C) actually renders the statistics more surprising, by providing evidence that prenatal care will add to society's economic burden.
(D) also renders the statistics more surprising, by providing evidence that the cost of the prenatal care program will not be offset by a particular health benefit—a benefit which would lessen the taxpayers' economic burden.
Question 3—Analysis
The correct response to Question 3 is (D). The original argument bases a conclusion that one phenomenon causes another on an observed correlation between the two phenomena. The argument boils down to the following:
Premise: X (beautiful beach) is correlated with Y (crowd of people).
Conclusion: X (beautiful beach) causes Y (crowd of people).
Answer choice (D) demonstrates the same pattern of reasoning:
Premise: X (warm weather) is correlated with Y (fleas).
Conclusion: X (warm weather) causes Y (fleas).
(A) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (moose at the drinking hole) is correlated with Y (bears at the drinking hole).
Conclusion: X (moose) and Y (bear) are both caused by Z (thirst).
(B) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (scolding children) is correlated with Y (misbehavior among children).
Assumption: Either X causes Y, or Y causes X.
Conclusion: Not X (no scolding) will be correlated with not Y (no misbehavior).
(C) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (software program) causes Y (efficiency).
Assumption: Y (efficiency) causes Z (free time).
Conclusion: X (software program) causes Z (free time).
(E) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument. In fact, (E) is not a complete argument; it contains two premises but no conclusion:
Premise: X (pesticides) causes Y (anemia).
Premise: Not X (pesticide-free regions) is correlated with Y (anemia).
Question 4—Analysis
The correct response to Question 4 is (C). The argument boils down to the following, including the unstated assumption provided by (C):
Premise: Students get enough reading practice already.
Unstated assumption (C): The reading program provides only reading practice.
Conclusion: The reading program is unnecessary.
(A) is not a necessary assumption. The argument is not concerned with whether improved reading skills would help the students learn history and science. Rather, the argument involves whether the new program would help improve reading skills.
(B) is not a necessary assumption. The argument is that no additional reading practice is needed, regardless of which program provides that practice.
(D) is not a necessary assumption. The argument does not aim to compare the importance of one discipline over another.
(E) is not a necessary assumption. The argument is not concerned with whether improved reading skills would help the students learn history and science. Rather, the argument involves whether the new program would help improve reading skills.
Question 5—Analysis
The correct response to Question 5 is (E). Assuming the number of viable competitors has increased during the last two years, the likely result would be to draw circulation away from already viable newspapers, including the most profitable one. Given that profitability depends primarily on advertising revenues and therefore on circulation, (E) actually exacerbates the discrepancy between the two statements.
(A) and (D) help explain why the most profitable newspaper remains most profitable even though its circulation is declining: Advertisers have not yet begun to switch because the most profitable newspaper is still the most widely circulated.
(B) helps explain the discrepancy. Although the argument provides that advertisers are more likely to advertise with widely circulated newspapers than with others, it is entirely possible that other factors, such as advertising rates that a newspaper charges, also affect which newspapers advertisers choose.
(C) helps explain the discrepancy, by identifying another source of revenue and therefore another means of enhancing profitability. Simply stated, the more sources of revenue the more profitable a newspaper is likely to be. This in turn helps explain why the most profitable newspaper in the city remains the most profitable one, despite declining circulation. Admittedly, as circulation decreases so does subscriber revenue, and thus overall profitability. Yet the newspaper's profitability is still greater than it would be without revenue from its subscribers.
Section 4:
Question 1—Analysis
The correct response to Question 1 is (C). Although the passage does digress in the last paragraph (suggesting a possible transition to another area of discussion), the passage is devoted mainly to a critical analysis of the restorationists' environmental philosophy, as exemplified by Turner and Jordan.
(A) is too narrow. Admittedly, the author does discuss (in the third and fourth paragraphs) the similarities and differences between the organic and community participation models. While response (A) would appear to encompass this discussion, (A) does not embrace the author's larger purpose: to critique the restorationist philosophy.
(B) is too narrow and is not well supported. Admittedly, the author does introduce (in the third paragraph) an alternative model—i.e., the organic model. However, the author's limited purpose in introducing the organic model is to underscore the author's broader point that the restorationists' program is inconsistent with their principles. Moreover, the author makes no claim to having formulated the organic model or that it is a "new" model, as (B) suggests.
(D) distorts the author's purpose. Admittedly, the author does explore the possibility that a model other than the community participation model might more accurately reflect the restorationists' agenda. However, the author's point here is that another model might be more consistent with the restorationists' program, not that one particular model is more workable or otherwise preferable for everyone. For all the reader knows, the author might be a mainstream industrialist who opposes all pro-environment policies.
(E) calls for an unwarranted inference as to the author's purpose. Based upon the last paragraph, the passage might conceivably continue by asserting that all environmental models are problematic and therefore of limited usefulness. However, whether the author would continue in this vein is speculative. Since the passage itself does not include such a discussion, (E) is not a viable response.
Question 2—Analysis
The correct response to Question 2 is (D). In the first paragraph, the author asserts that a preservationist need not have a dualist view, and therefore the argument of Turner and Jordan that the preservationists are also "unhealthy" dualists is an unfair claim. Response (D) is also supported later in the first paragraph, where the author criticizes Turner and Jordan for the "sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists." The author implies that other groups (e.g., "those who have plundered the natural world") are more deserving of sharp criticism than the preservationists. In this sense as well, then, the author would probably agree that Turner and Jordan have unfairly criticized the preservationists.
(A) confuses the information in the passage. The author suggests that it is the restorationists such as Turner and Jordan (not the preservationists) who are not critical enough of those that have plundered the natural world.
(B) and (C) confuse the author's viewpoint with the viewpoint of others mentioned in the passage. It is the restorationists, not the author, who claim that the preservationists base their ideas on an unhealthy dualism and who suffer from the same mind-set as the industrial mainstream.
(E) confuses the information in the passage and calls for speculation. First, the crucial question that the author poses (in lines 22-25) is whether the restorationists, not the preservationists, have been faithful to their principles. Second, although the author asserts that the restorationists have not been faithful to their principle, it is unfair to infer that the preservationists have been faithful to theirs.
Question 3—Analysis
The correct response to Question 3 is (C). The author refers in the first sentence of the second paragraph to the "crucial question," signaling that the primary concern of the passage is to follow. Accordingly, the first paragraph introduces the topic by discussing non-crucial questions.
(A) is wholly unsupported and runs contrary to the passage. Although the first paragraph does establish parameters insofar as it identifies the topic of the passage, in no sense does it identify which issues are subject to debate and which are not. To the contrary, the primary issue (whether the restorationists have been faithful to their own principle) is not even mentioned in the first paragraph.
(B) is only partially supported. Although in the first paragraph the author does indeed identify some problems with the restorationist critique of preservationism, rather than exploring these problems in greater detail, the author turns in subsequent paragraphs to another, more "crucial," problem.
(D) distorts the information in the passage. Although the author does include some "historical" background insofar as the environmentalists' unhappiness with mainstream industrial society (lines 5-6) is mentioned using the past tense, aside from this single reference to past events, the first paragraph speaks in terms of the present day.
(E) distorts the overall structure. The first paragraph does not really discuss opposing viewpoints but rather critiques one viewpoint: the restorationists' view of preservationism. Moreover, in subsequent paragraphs, the author makes no attempt to evaluate this viewpoint.
Question 4—Analysis
The correct response to Question 4 is (A). In the preceding sentence, the author asserts that Turner's and Jordan's descriptions of restorationist activites "do not cohere well with the community participation model." By following this assertion with the suggestion that another model might be more serviceable, it is reasonably inferable that restorationists' activities are more consistent with this other model than with the community participation model.
(B) confuses the information in this portion of the passage. The author is concerned with which model more closely conforms to the restorationists' program, not which model better conforms to their principle.
(C) confuses the information in the passage—specifically, by bringing in irrelevant information. The author is not concerned at all in this portion of the passage with the preservationists. No attempt is made here or anywhere else in the passage to relate the organic model to the preservationists' program.
(D) is somewhat consistent with the information in the passage, but it does not respond to the question. The author does identify the organic model as one type of "holistic" model; however, the author asserts that it may be more serviceable than another holistic model (i.e., the community participation model), not the dualist model (which is not a holistic model).
(E) is partially supported by the passage, but (E) also contradicts the passage. The author does indeed assert that the organic model represents nature as a system of interconnected parts. However, according to the author, so does the community participation model (lines 37-39).
Question 5—Analysis
The correct response to Question 5 is (D). The author finds some point of similarity among all other models mentioned (see below). Therefore, by elimination, (D) is the best response.
(A), (B), and (E) are not viable. The author points out (see last paragraph) several parallels between the organic model (a holistic model) and the domination model.
(C) is not a viable response, since the author points out in the third paragraph that the community participation and organic models both picture nature as a system of interconnected parts. For this additional reason, (E) is also not viable.
Question 6—Analysis
The correct response to Question 6 is (E). The "crucial" (primary) question for the author involves the degree to which the restorationists are true to their first principle (lines 22-26). The author then claims that they are not so true in that their program "does not cohere well" with their principle (lines 33-34). Since this issue is "crucial" to the author, it is reasonable to assert that this criticism is the author's "primary" one.
(D) is the second-best response. Although the author does indeed criticize the restorationists on this count (in the first paragraph), this criticism is not the author's "primary" one, since the author raises and answers a more "crucial question" in the second paragraph.
(A) and (B) are supportable statements, but they do not respond to the question. Although the author ascribes the characteristics mentioned in (A) and (B) to the restorationists (as well as to the dominationists), the author does not identify this characteristic as a point of criticism.
(C) is unsupported by the information in the passage. The author neither states nor implies that one model is more workable than others (except insofar as one model might be more appropriate than another for a particular school of thought) or which model that would be. In addition, although the passage is clear that the restorationists have embraced the community participation model, the passage is not at all explicit that they have "rejected" any particular other model (except for the dualist model).
Friday, February 6, 2009
What could I do today?
I could mock the moron single mother in California for bringing in 8 more morons into her family of 6 other morons.
I could mock the Presidential cabinet selections for not paying their taxes, even though one of them is the head of the IRS.
I could mock the majority of people who are so self involved and self centered to notice anything else going on in this world.
I could mock the French. Why not?
I could mock all the morons on Facebook. Most of whom I attended high school with, and I am learning quickly that while they no longer attend high school they still act like it.
I could mock the pimp here in Chicago that was arrested 12 times for driving with a suspended license, and ordered to spend 10 days in jail starting today, except for the fact that on the day of his sentencing, the 23rd of Jan, he was arrested 20 minutes after his hearing for; yes you guessed it, driving home.
I could mock myself for turning 36 and not having graduated from school yet.
I could mock my wife for being short and I could definitely mock her driving (except it scares me).
I could mock my father for being a Democrat.
I could mock my friend who was in the Army, but is currently looking for blue light specials for being an elitist Republican.
I could mock my friend at BOA for being in a work sorority.
I could go on and on, but I will not.
As most of you know today is my 36th birthday. I know some of you are surprised I made it that far. Some of you are surprised my lovely wife has not smothered me with a pillow yet, maybe for next Christmas. Everyone knows that it is easy to mock people or find faults in others. One of the hardest things in life is to find and acknowledge the faults within one’s self. This is what I believe that life is or should be about; locating our own faults and doing everything we can to make them better. If you are sitting reading this thinking “but I have no faults”, reach up slowly with your hand and slap yourself. You do. It does not matter if you are 36 or 76. There is always something we can change to better ourselves. I know that I have to work harder on finding my faults and do everything I can to correct them.
I do not want my birthday to be just about me, so I am going to make my birthday wishes for other people:
I wish that we all can become better people tomorrow than we are today.
To my friend MP in Afghanistan, I wish for your safety and the safety of those fighting with you. We’ve got your back here.
To my friend the Professor, I wish for everything to get resolved peacefully. As you know sometimes life is difficult, hell it could be worse, everything could be what it used to be.
To my friend TopCop and his family, I wish for a healthy new baby and health to find my niece. These are the days that will make you stronger as a family. You know that I am here if you need me for anything.
To my friends the couple that is on plan in Charlotte, I wish you all the best with your first child, which is due in a month now. I will say this, anyone who has had children knows that no matter how well you have things planned, it all goes to shit the first moment you see you child. So prepare yourselves for an adventure like you have never experienced or could have even imagined. There is something about children that can take you over the highest mountains while at the same time bring you to your knees in prayer. Always remember that you have friends and that they are here for you. There are also people that you may not have considered friends before but they are also here for you.
To my parents, I wish for you to live as long as you like and see and experience everything your heart’s desire. My inheritance be damned. I know my baby sis was going to get it all anyway, so enjoy life you cannot take it with you.
To my father in-law and potential future step-mother-in-law or whatever, I wish for you both to find happiness in whatever you do; whether that is 10 fathoms under the sea, or sipping margaritas on a beach.
To the son of my potential future step-mother-in-law or whatever, I wish you were not so damn smart. I do envy you and the journey you are about to begin. If you ever need some really bad advice, ask my father-in-law. If you even need advice on what not to do ask me. If you need good advice, sorry I think you may be in the wrong family.
To my children, I wish that you find peace and happiness throughout your lives. M & M you are facing what will be the tipping point in your lives. You will learn or you are not going to make it to your next birthday.
To my Oklahoma Girl, I wish you stay just the way you are. You have an incredible strength that inspires me.
To my sis, I wish that you would get off your ass and bring your family up to visit more often. There is more to do in Chicago than it PC.
To my wife, I wish that you get everything you wish for in the coming year. I know it’s a big list, but dreams do come true, I know I married you.
To my brother-in-law and hippie girl, I wish you two would just figure out what the hell you are going to do and do it.
To my friend who never forgets anyone, I wish for you to find your soul mate. Whatever the distance that must be traveled, down the street or across the country, if you need a ride let me know.
To my sorority girl friend (everyone shut up I know how that sounds), I wish you and your husband the best and hope for continued happiness.
To everyone else, I wish for you to find what you are looking for in life. Once you have it hold on to it.
To those that have passed on over the past year, my wish is that we can celebrate your lives and not morn them. You will always hold a special place in our hearts and for that we love you and miss you. We will do everything we can not to let you down.
My final wish is for Robert Joseph Acalotto and his family. I know that all of you have no idea who this person is; to be honest I didn’t know either until a few days ago. Robert Acalotto, born January 30th 1951, was a SP 4 in the Army attached to the 48th Aviation Company, 223rd Aviation Battalion, and 1st Aviation Brigade in Vietnam. He was a door gunner in a UH1C (Huey Helicopter). His helicopter was shot down February 20th 1971 over Laos during Operation Dewey Canyon II. While the helicopter made a safe landing, the pilot was the only member of the crew ever seen again and that was in numerous POW camps. SP 4 Acalotto was never found nor was he confirmed dead; he is listed as Missing in Action. I tell you this story because we should never forget those people who came before us and gave everything they had for this country. I proudly wear a bracelet to remember him and the cost that he paid.
Until Tomorrow
I could mock the Presidential cabinet selections for not paying their taxes, even though one of them is the head of the IRS.
I could mock the majority of people who are so self involved and self centered to notice anything else going on in this world.
I could mock the French. Why not?
I could mock all the morons on Facebook. Most of whom I attended high school with, and I am learning quickly that while they no longer attend high school they still act like it.
I could mock the pimp here in Chicago that was arrested 12 times for driving with a suspended license, and ordered to spend 10 days in jail starting today, except for the fact that on the day of his sentencing, the 23rd of Jan, he was arrested 20 minutes after his hearing for; yes you guessed it, driving home.
I could mock myself for turning 36 and not having graduated from school yet.
I could mock my wife for being short and I could definitely mock her driving (except it scares me).
I could mock my father for being a Democrat.
I could mock my friend who was in the Army, but is currently looking for blue light specials for being an elitist Republican.
I could mock my friend at BOA for being in a work sorority.
I could go on and on, but I will not.
As most of you know today is my 36th birthday. I know some of you are surprised I made it that far. Some of you are surprised my lovely wife has not smothered me with a pillow yet, maybe for next Christmas. Everyone knows that it is easy to mock people or find faults in others. One of the hardest things in life is to find and acknowledge the faults within one’s self. This is what I believe that life is or should be about; locating our own faults and doing everything we can to make them better. If you are sitting reading this thinking “but I have no faults”, reach up slowly with your hand and slap yourself. You do. It does not matter if you are 36 or 76. There is always something we can change to better ourselves. I know that I have to work harder on finding my faults and do everything I can to correct them.
I do not want my birthday to be just about me, so I am going to make my birthday wishes for other people:
I wish that we all can become better people tomorrow than we are today.
To my friend MP in Afghanistan, I wish for your safety and the safety of those fighting with you. We’ve got your back here.
To my friend the Professor, I wish for everything to get resolved peacefully. As you know sometimes life is difficult, hell it could be worse, everything could be what it used to be.
To my friend TopCop and his family, I wish for a healthy new baby and health to find my niece. These are the days that will make you stronger as a family. You know that I am here if you need me for anything.
To my friends the couple that is on plan in Charlotte, I wish you all the best with your first child, which is due in a month now. I will say this, anyone who has had children knows that no matter how well you have things planned, it all goes to shit the first moment you see you child. So prepare yourselves for an adventure like you have never experienced or could have even imagined. There is something about children that can take you over the highest mountains while at the same time bring you to your knees in prayer. Always remember that you have friends and that they are here for you. There are also people that you may not have considered friends before but they are also here for you.
To my parents, I wish for you to live as long as you like and see and experience everything your heart’s desire. My inheritance be damned. I know my baby sis was going to get it all anyway, so enjoy life you cannot take it with you.
To my father in-law and potential future step-mother-in-law or whatever, I wish for you both to find happiness in whatever you do; whether that is 10 fathoms under the sea, or sipping margaritas on a beach.
To the son of my potential future step-mother-in-law or whatever, I wish you were not so damn smart. I do envy you and the journey you are about to begin. If you ever need some really bad advice, ask my father-in-law. If you even need advice on what not to do ask me. If you need good advice, sorry I think you may be in the wrong family.
To my children, I wish that you find peace and happiness throughout your lives. M & M you are facing what will be the tipping point in your lives. You will learn or you are not going to make it to your next birthday.
To my Oklahoma Girl, I wish you stay just the way you are. You have an incredible strength that inspires me.
To my sis, I wish that you would get off your ass and bring your family up to visit more often. There is more to do in Chicago than it PC.
To my wife, I wish that you get everything you wish for in the coming year. I know it’s a big list, but dreams do come true, I know I married you.
To my brother-in-law and hippie girl, I wish you two would just figure out what the hell you are going to do and do it.
To my friend who never forgets anyone, I wish for you to find your soul mate. Whatever the distance that must be traveled, down the street or across the country, if you need a ride let me know.
To my sorority girl friend (everyone shut up I know how that sounds), I wish you and your husband the best and hope for continued happiness.
To everyone else, I wish for you to find what you are looking for in life. Once you have it hold on to it.
To those that have passed on over the past year, my wish is that we can celebrate your lives and not morn them. You will always hold a special place in our hearts and for that we love you and miss you. We will do everything we can not to let you down.
My final wish is for Robert Joseph Acalotto and his family. I know that all of you have no idea who this person is; to be honest I didn’t know either until a few days ago. Robert Acalotto, born January 30th 1951, was a SP 4 in the Army attached to the 48th Aviation Company, 223rd Aviation Battalion, and 1st Aviation Brigade in Vietnam. He was a door gunner in a UH1C (Huey Helicopter). His helicopter was shot down February 20th 1971 over Laos during Operation Dewey Canyon II. While the helicopter made a safe landing, the pilot was the only member of the crew ever seen again and that was in numerous POW camps. SP 4 Acalotto was never found nor was he confirmed dead; he is listed as Missing in Action. I tell you this story because we should never forget those people who came before us and gave everything they had for this country. I proudly wear a bracelet to remember him and the cost that he paid.
Until Tomorrow
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A Movie
Riggs: “You cut yourself shaving, old Razor?”
Murtaugh: “Old Face.”
I think of the most random things at the most random times. I was shaving earlier and I cut myself. The scene above from Lethal Weapon 3 popped into my head. Yes, part of it could be from my birthday looming on the horizon. Maybe part of it is I am getting closer to closing a chapter in life with the completion of my first college degree. The one thing that is a constant is that life continues to roll on.
I find it interesting that movies pop up at different times in our lives. Some movies define us, some inspire us, and some relieve stress. The really good ones pull us in and allow us to escape for a couple of hours. The movie I watched last night was one of those. The movie was “Traitor”. Don Cheadle (Ocean’s Eleven) plays “Samir Horn” an ex-US Solider who joins an Islamic fundamentalist group. He is recruited because he is a devout Muslim and explosives expert. The group is planning an attack on America, but first he must prove himself worthy. Some quality bonding time in a Yemeni prison and moving around through France, Canada, and the United States brings him into the heart of the group. Samir is being tracked by FBI agent “Roy Clayton” played by Guy Pearce (L.A. Confidential). Clayton is also involved with other agencies all tasked with preventing terrorism. This is a difficult movie to discuss without spoiling it. This movie showcases the problems with inter-departmental communications. It shows the lengths to which terror groups will go to attack. Cheadle and Pearce play their characters to perfection. Passion, desire, and drive to succeed live at their core. This movie attempts to answer the questions: How far does one have to go to keep this country safe? What is the cost of our freedom and protection by those who have to pay it? An overall great movie with great performances from main characters and a supporting group that can make a believer out of anyone with plenty of drama and twists, 4.5 out of 5. A must rent but be forewarned the road ahead provides a thought provoking and powerful emotional journey.
Until Tomorrow
Murtaugh: “Old Face.”
I think of the most random things at the most random times. I was shaving earlier and I cut myself. The scene above from Lethal Weapon 3 popped into my head. Yes, part of it could be from my birthday looming on the horizon. Maybe part of it is I am getting closer to closing a chapter in life with the completion of my first college degree. The one thing that is a constant is that life continues to roll on.
I find it interesting that movies pop up at different times in our lives. Some movies define us, some inspire us, and some relieve stress. The really good ones pull us in and allow us to escape for a couple of hours. The movie I watched last night was one of those. The movie was “Traitor”. Don Cheadle (Ocean’s Eleven) plays “Samir Horn” an ex-US Solider who joins an Islamic fundamentalist group. He is recruited because he is a devout Muslim and explosives expert. The group is planning an attack on America, but first he must prove himself worthy. Some quality bonding time in a Yemeni prison and moving around through France, Canada, and the United States brings him into the heart of the group. Samir is being tracked by FBI agent “Roy Clayton” played by Guy Pearce (L.A. Confidential). Clayton is also involved with other agencies all tasked with preventing terrorism. This is a difficult movie to discuss without spoiling it. This movie showcases the problems with inter-departmental communications. It shows the lengths to which terror groups will go to attack. Cheadle and Pearce play their characters to perfection. Passion, desire, and drive to succeed live at their core. This movie attempts to answer the questions: How far does one have to go to keep this country safe? What is the cost of our freedom and protection by those who have to pay it? An overall great movie with great performances from main characters and a supporting group that can make a believer out of anyone with plenty of drama and twists, 4.5 out of 5. A must rent but be forewarned the road ahead provides a thought provoking and powerful emotional journey.
Until Tomorrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
