breakdown

lowres

P1: introduction of 2 views

P2: obligations of businesses

P3: more about that obligation and how economists believe it justifies decisions made

P4: author's opinion - rebuttal of the economists opinion w/ a counter example

highres

P1: some people think that businesses are blameworthy because they choose to maximize profits instead of honoring the public good.

P2: Corporations are an amalgam of people, so there's no individual responsibility, only group responsibility. The group responsible for making corporate decisions.

P3: Given the fiduciary responsibility, CEOs have to maximize profit for the shareholders, not only that, but economists argue that whatever is done to maximize profits will be beneficial for the public good in the long term.

P4: Author chimes in: s/he thinks that's dumb as hell. Gives an example where a paper mill can maximize profits and ruin the environment - CEO would be praised, but he should still be held morally blameworthy

breakdown:

lowres:

P1: presentation of old view: Western legal systems have traditionally privileged objectivism, but that's flawed

P2: problem with old view: This flaw has excluded people from the legal system

P3: Solution to the flaw via new paradigm.

Highres:

P1: Objectivism is a discursive practice that is based on the notion that it is possible to attain the view point of an "objective observer". This notion is flawed because people always bring with them their own conceptions and expectations

P2: The assumption of objectivism has excluded people from the legal system - those untrained in legal discourse are left high at a disadvantage

P3: 3 legal scholars propose a legal form to replace abstract discourse with personal stories b/c it gives the power back to legal outsiders and promotes empathy

tone: author likes the new view

structure: first paragraph presents old view - second presents flaw - third presents alternative

viewpoints: old view, new paradigm, author likes the new one.

Passage subject: art

lowres:

P1: political analysis > psychoanalysis

P2: political influences. Namely, marxism and deeper indigenous roots, mexican nationalism

P3: An example of how her political ideology is represented in her art

P4: More about Fk's style -

highres:

P1: Although people have analyzed FK through psychoanalysis: she is a political figure who championed the struggle for political and cultural identity

P2: She was influenced by Marxism, it was popular at the time, and she was influenced by nostalgic memory of the Aztecs - they were also communal, which jived well with her Marxist thoughts

P3: There's a painting where she's in between the US and Mexico, she's wearing Aztec garb - her images represent struggle of Mexico to emerge as its own nation

P4: FK is a mythical figure in Mexican history because she is viewed as representative of nationalism itself.

tone: leaning towards a respect of FK and her art.

structure: introduction of FK actually turns into a clash between materialism and national identity

viewpoints: only the author's really.

Sell well --> [maybe] b/c too trendy

Do not sell well ---> unsuccessful

--------------------

Underground rock group --> [How well you sell≠success]

Anticipation: there are some gaps. They never told you being too trendy means you're unsuccessful. They never told you that being incompetent means you unsuccessful.

B) too trendy → /success

incomp→/success

B fills the gaps in our anticipation very well.

Perfect example of something that seems really easy on review and really really daunting on the test

#help

Need some advice on how to handle questions like these. I feel like they're freebies, but I can't get them under pressure.

Crit-->/[critharms]

Crit--> benefit someone else

-------------------------------------

J should not have criticized.

Anticipation: if you want to draw /[crit], then you need to say either: the criticism would harm, or that it wouldn’t benefit anyone else. J knew what he was doing would not benefit anyone. So, you can validly draw the conclusion.

P: if we make it easier for endangered species to survive, then we make it harder for unendangered species to survive

----------

C: shouldn’t interfere with natural habitats of creatures in the wild

Anticipation: It's relative for both species. Just because it's harder for an nonendangered species to survive does not mean that the nonendangered species will become extinct because of intervention. It's easier to see with numbers too: let's say and endangered species has a 6% chance of survival and an nonendangered has 96% chance of survival. Now, what if wildlife management experts interfered and the endangered species, then, had a 25% chance of survival, but the nonendangered species had an 85% chance of survival. Are these possibilities strong enough to draw and absolute conclusion that we should not ie should never interfere in such a scenario? No! In such a case, it's clear that you might actually need to prioritize the survival of the endangered species.

NA:

Immoralaction→harm others

immoralaction→eventually harms person performing action

-------------

Thus: act immorally→out of ignorance & characterdfx

Assumption: No one who performs an action to harm oneself does so out of character defects.

I know usually you're not supposed to digram when you're taking the actual test, but is this one of those where you just have to diagram?

#help (Added by Admin)

lowres:

p1: Phenom - Maize is unusually productive. Why?

p2: explanation part 1: in some plants the process of photosynthesis is hindered by oxygen

p3: expl part2: how Maize solves the problem

highres:

p1: maize is really productive and it has lead to pop growth and increased ag prod. why?

p2: plants split H2 and O2 - they use the H2 and emit the O2. Plants also use CO2 to help with sugar prod and rubisco, an enzyme is important in this process. Sometimes when there's too much O2 in atmosphere it fucks with the photosynthetic reaction

p3: Maize solves the problem b/c the place where the O2 and H2 are split is separate from the place where sugar is built. This split means that the rubisco can do it's thing in a little bubble called a "bundle sheath cell". However, the bundle prevents gases from entering so CO2 changes to a nongas from, C-4, so it can enter the bubble and make sugar more effectively.

MP: C-4 photosynthesis is a distinct process from regular photosynth, which makes maize productive

Author: seems to like the findings

Passage 1:

Parag1: CAW has been in use for a long time autoworkers like it. Option for using outside lawyer, but many do not use one .

P2: CAW members like it, but there's some disagreement from lawyers. Directors of CAW tell lawyers it's ok – they'll end up making money

P3: Author chimes in – not likely that it's actually profitable – down-ward pressure from fees cannot be made up with high volume. Plus, the volume will result in shitty service from lawyers.

P1 = context, but P2 introduces views while P3 gives comes to conclusion about the subject in question.

Tone: author disagrees w/ directors and sides w/ lawyers (surprise surprise)

MP: plan not good – bad for clients and lawyers in the long-run

#help

When doing this during BR I got it correct, but it took me a while to get it. How would you recommend doing this on the test? Would you map out the whole thing?

equivocation flaw. "retired form citicorp" ≠ retired from all work. Mr. Nance seems to assume that these are the same.

Logical force fallacy - just because there no one specific path that doesn't mean there is no path.

There could be like 5 or 6 different common and correct paths.

For number 7 I thought about it actually said to myself "yeah half the films is probably enough to constitute a preponderance of evidence". Because in my mid preponderance just means "a lot of evidence" and half seems like "al lot of evidence"

Then I looked up the definition: "A requirement that more than 50% of the evidence points to something."

What a dirty trick LSAT. Not fair.

#help

I thought that this was a composition fallacy. The individuals = "every person" the group = "government by consent". Why doesn't this work?

Process of elimination is my best friend for this one.

I spent a good minute and half or so just reading the stimulus. Saw A hesitated to circle it. Then I read all of the other ACs and eliminated them really easily.

NA: blocking type

premises:

limited amount of metal ore

we must do w/o metal ore, or turn to renewables

-----------

C: current pattern of consumption of nonrenewables must chage

anticipation: they only give you two options, maybe there's a third thing you could do

B: this is blocking the possibility of another option.

Low:

P1: there’s a paradox

P2: the arc of popularity of ModMov is described

P3: why the decline of popularity occurred

P4: Post Mod’s give their opinion

High:

P1: It’s ironic that Modern Movement of architecture was supposedly said to be “reflect functional spirit” b/c the way the buildings were physically was impractical (i.e. not functional)

P2: At first ModMov wasn’t all that popular, then they were, then they started dictating how building’s should be built, but they kind of ignored features of the buildings that could not be entirely considered “modern”

P3: Their concerns were cheifly aesthetic, and then there was a development in how buildings were actually built that sort of screwed them over.

P4: PostMod architects say that parts of what the ModMov did was unnecessary and their unwillingness to come to terms with them ultimately led to their decline.

26 the architects were named as an example of people who represented the movement as innovators, but refused to acknowledge features of their work that were not entirely "Modern".

Lowres

1:RLM discovered NGF

2: experiment that describes how she discovered NGF

3: the specific function of NGF in the body.

High:

1: survival of nerves is regulated by NGF, which was discovered by RLM

2: she hypothesized that some nerves are are programmed to die in embryos. She discovered this through an experiment that the tumors were responsible for NGF

3: Lead to more research that showed how NGF plays a role in developing organs in the body connecting them to muscles w/ which they will form connections, transmissions and impulses. If no NGF, then the nerves die.

17. What assertion from passage A supports what M from passage B thinks? So M from passage B thinks that the idea that "conscious intention is uniquely human" is exemplified by honeybee's waggle dance because the dance is a conditioned reflex. So, the answer has to show an example of from passage A where an animal is doing a conditioned reflex w/o any conscious attention.

A: doesn't help support at all; irrelevant. Bees don't think.

B: that's pretty good, but there's no mention of conscious attention

C: same as A

D: If the frog is doing something, but doesn't know in what way he is affecting others' knowledge, that frog cannot possibly be using his conscious attention. In other words, it has to be a stimulus response type of situation.

E: again, we don't know if they're doing this because they lack conscious attention.

Passage A:

P1: the function of language for humans and humans ability to perceive the minds of other humans

P2: Animals to not share the ability that humans have of perception - their vocalizations are merely utilized because of their potential to benefit the signaler. 2 examples are given. Chimpanzees might be the exception.

Passage B:

P1: belief of some scientists: animal communication is based on "stimulus and response" while human communication has the potential to spontaneous and creative

P2: The description of the differences between animal communication and human communication continues: ultimate difference is the inability of animals to exert conscious attention.

P3: Author chimes in! He disagrees w/ scientists, and therefore, with the author of passage A. He argues that their arguments are based on circular reasoning. Also, calls into question the assumption that human communication and animal communication are qualitatively different.

24. has to be sufficient

A: no mention of nations

B: no mention of languages

C: only mentioned that US was a colonial power - no specifics

D: "textual ambiguities" cannot be supported. We know that he question of citizenship was defined, and we know that it had not been genuinely resolved. We don't know how or why it wasn't resolved. Therefore, not sufficient.

E: line 19 "some black leaders insisted on their right to citizenship".

27. What approach did mainstream US historians take - that's third paragraph. We know that they're nationalists, the believe in propagating "new myths" and the inevitability of nations and their destinies.

A: doesn't map to the anticipation in anyway

B: wtf does precocity mean? "Innate talent" is the only thing even remotely applies

C: ??

D: Help the public... what does that have to do with anything

E: No, there's nothing that makes this correct.

Breakdown:

1:Mainstream and transnational views: AfAm scholars developed a transnational perspective, for several reasons, not the least of which was to maintain honesty

2: Some reasons that spurred the break on part of the AfAm transnationalists: lack of clear rules regarding citizenship made people want to emigrate, but others wanted to stay - unsure what to do, but were profoundly pessimistic.

3: Mainstream historiographers were nationalistic. They focused on created myths and propagating ideas that AfAm scholars found troubling

4: AfAm scholars did their own thing, but that turned out to be largely nationalist as well.

MP: Transnationalists countered the mainstream, nationalists perspective in way that was actually uniquely nationalist.