Feb Writing Section

Miznitic
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby Miznitic » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:22 am

I went with the hotel

- Hikers leave trash
- - trash pickup. Trash cans.
- - - Labor Cost
- Hikers Feed animals
- - Heightened Risk of animal attacks
- Tour Buses pollute
- - Roads would have to be large enough to support tour buses
- Cars pollute
- Lots of construction required for roads & trails
- Large network of trails / roads = lots of construction = lots of park disturbance

- Hotel is concentrated over several acres.
- Green construction & maintenance
- - Hotel can be built to isolate it from the rest of the natural wildlife/forest
- One road vs Dozens of trails/roads

There were a few more points I raised in my essay, but I can't remember them all now.

SummerBrees
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:59 am

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby SummerBrees » Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:11 am

I went with the trails. I create a pro's and cons diagram and couldn't come up with much to say on pro-hotel side.

KarlZ06
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:27 am

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby KarlZ06 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:03 pm

Miznitic wrote:I went with the hotel

- Hikers leave trash
- - trash pickup. Trash cans.
- - - Labor Cost
- Hikers Feed animals
- - Heightened Risk of animal attacks
- Tour Buses pollute
- - Roads would have to be large enough to support tour buses
- Cars pollute
- Lots of construction required for roads & trails
- Large network of trails / roads = lots of construction = lots of park disturbance

- Hotel is concentrated over several acres.
- Green construction & maintenance
- - Hotel can be built to isolate it from the rest of the natural wildlife/forest
- One road vs Dozens of trails/roads

There were a few more points I raised in my essay, but I can't remember them all now.




***Talk about a one sided outline. You assume way to much outside of the scope of information provided. What makes you believe there is only going to be "One" road with the hotel and restaurant complex project? You must of failed to acknowledge the fact that the passage mentioned the "oversized" parking lots needed to support the hotel and restaurant(s).

How are you able to discuss labor cost associated with hiking tails and not compare the overhead of both hotels and restaurants?

My favorite lines:
"- Cars pollute
- Lots of construction required for roads & trails
- Large network of trails / roads = lots of construction = lots of park disturbance"

How would you expect the patrons to transport themselves to the hotel and restaurant?
Lots of construction required and park disturbance for roads & trails, huh? Have you ever seen the construction site for a hotel and restaurant complex? Come on now, common sense.

Lastly, do you remember the details about the distance from the hotel/restaurants in contracts to nearby civilization? It's okay though, because the housing development also requires less construction and roads than the hiking trails proposal, right?

You make no sense in your arguments for the hotel and restaurant complex!

celio
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:57 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby celio » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:08 pm

KarlZ06 wrote:
Miznitic wrote:I went with the hotel

- Hikers leave trash
- - trash pickup. Trash cans.
- - - Labor Cost
- Hikers Feed animals
- - Heightened Risk of animal attacks
- Tour Buses pollute
- - Roads would have to be large enough to support tour buses
- Cars pollute
- Lots of construction required for roads & trails
- Large network of trails / roads = lots of construction = lots of park disturbance

- Hotel is concentrated over several acres.
- Green construction & maintenance
- - Hotel can be built to isolate it from the rest of the natural wildlife/forest
- One road vs Dozens of trails/roads

There were a few more points I raised in my essay, but I can't remember them all now.




***Talk about a one sided outline. You assume way to much outside of the scope of information provided. What makes you believe there is only going to be "One" road with the hotel and restaurant complex project? You must of failed to acknowledge the fact that the passage mentioned the "oversized" parking lots needed to support the hotel and restaurant(s).

How are you able to discuss labor cost associated with hiking tails and not compare the overhead of both hotels and restaurants?

My favorite lines:
"- Cars pollute
- Lots of construction required for roads & trails
- Large network of trails / roads = lots of construction = lots of park disturbance"

How would you expect the patrons to transport themselves to the hotel and restaurant?
Lots of construction required and park disturbance for roads & trails, huh? Have you ever seen the construction site for a hotel and restaurant complex? Come on now, common sense.

Lastly, do you remember the details about the distance from the hotel/restaurants in contracts to nearby civilization? It's okay though, because the housing development also requires less construction and roads than the hiking trails proposal, right?

You make no sense in your arguments for the hotel and restaurant complex!


NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!1!

User avatar
Pricer
Posts: 558
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby Pricer » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:18 pm

Everything Miznitic wrote makes complete sense. He is looking at it from the way I did.

You guys forget that there is no right answer. You are telling him that his obvious valid points do not make sense to justify your own reasoning to make your answer right. This argument is really easy to argue either way, and I am surprised so many people are failing to realize this.

User avatar
monkeyboy
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:11 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby monkeyboy » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:28 pm

Pricer wrote:Everything Miznitic wrote makes complete sense. He is looking at it from the way I did.

You guys forget that there is no right answer. You are telling him that his obvious valid points do not make sense to justify your own reasoning to make your answer right. This argument is really easy to argue either way, and I am surprised so many people are failing to realize this.


I also went that route. I said that a potential localized threat is preferable to a widespread network of roads and trails which could put various micro ecosystems at risk. That was the crux of the issue for me. The money is kind of irrelevant, since neither choice is clearly going to be more lucrative than the other.

SummerBrees
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:59 am

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby SummerBrees » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:38 pm

Pricer wrote:Everything Miznitic wrote makes complete sense. He is looking at it from the way I did.

You guys forget that there is no right answer. You are telling him that his obvious valid points do not make sense to justify your own reasoning to make your answer right. This argument is really easy to argue either way, and I am surprised so many people are failing to realize this.


It seemed a bit one sided to me. If I remeber correctly there were two issues that needed to be considered:

1) Minimal ecological disturbance
2) Economically sustainable w/o outside help

In the end the trails seemed to be the lesser of the two evils. The tid bit about the trails having low-impact roads and having to build additional living quarters for hotel the staff pretty much sealed the deal for me.

User avatar
SJU2010
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:21 am

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby SJU2010 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:53 am

This thread proves that the writing section could be argued either way.

User avatar
dibs
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:15 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby dibs » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:42 pm

all schools care about is how you logically analyze a position and build your supporting argument. it's no coincidence they make you write this after 5 hours of gruelling exam questions. a lawyer has to be able to pay attention to detail for long periods of time in the face of adversity.

whether you argue one side or the other is irrelevant. it's how you write it.

dynomite
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby dynomite » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:46 pm

dibs wrote:whether you argue one side or the other is irrelevant. it's how you write it.


No! You're wrong!!!111!!! This argument was one-sided! My position is right! I don't care that the directions specifically state:

There is no “right” or “wrong” choice: a reasonable argument can be made for either

frankdevans
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby frankdevans » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:28 pm

I actually agree with the majority of what Miznitic wrote, although I did not go that much into detail and a few of my supporting reasons were similar but not exactly the same. I did, however, look to the long term viability of the park (as was requested in the question) rather than the initial 1-2 year construction phase.

I chose the hotel because it was centrally located and rendered the patrons more passive in their observation than active hikers, bikers, and tour buses would be. The hotel would be an imposition on nature in only one location and thus would less intrude on the ecosystem balance.

Plus, the ability to stay longer than a day in a relatively remote location would make the park more accessible to people traveling long distances. I know that the hotel would have to have quarters for the staff, a large parking lot, and lots of structure--but you have to remember that the whole footprint of even massive hotel complexes is less than 20 square blocks. On the other side, a park that has self-contained ecosystems would easily be in excess of 100 square miles.

I'm sure many will disagree, and I don't say that I discount your argument or your reasoning skill because you didn't arrive at the same conclusion I did. I chose this path not because I honestly felt it was the right way to go, but because I felt I could best defend it with intellectual and (hopefully) well-written arguments. This is what an Admissions Committee (if you can find one that will actually read your sample) wants to see.

DarkPhantom
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:45 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby DarkPhantom » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:48 pm

I would like to remind everyone that the writing squib states there is no right or wrong answer.

Cheers!

User avatar
danielle77
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:18 am

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby danielle77 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:02 pm

from the information given, to me, the hiking trails seemed the obvious choice. I agree with it, especially since the hotel thing was definitely a con for one of the premises (they wanted to make their own money without outside sources or something). Also, the success of the hotel agreement could be entirely dependent on the terms of the lease. The park may have been limited by only making the same "rent" fee each month even in high season or maybe they would accept a percentage of sales and totally be screwed over during the low season. I am not a big fan of land leases or in the other case, the park may be stuck with the empty hotel if the company totally messes up. And its a national park, why wouldnt they want to keep the integrity of its beauty as a whole plus they may have been able to set up the roads faster and start collecting money than if they had to make a bunch of buildings. oh and a hotel would most likely screw up the ecosystem since it would introduce foreign trash from the restaurants; those bears and raccoons may turn out to be very classy though if they were going to eat left over foie gras... whatever its not like anyone is going to read it. I was ready to party when it got to the writing section!

thunder 85
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:17 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby thunder 85 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:41 pm

too old for this sh* wrote:
gltm wrote:
dh22 wrote:So which project did you (not to mention a hotel presumed a lot of infrastructure that would not already have been in place and hence even more costly in the beginning)


+1. Utility costs FTL

bango
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:02 pm

Re: Feb Writing Section

Postby bango » Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:06 pm

I think you could make a good argument for either answer. I argued for the hotel and here is why: The prompt said the park would lease out the land for the hotel, not run or manage the hotel itself. That meant guaranteed money every year from the lease, plus any money the leasing company wanted to pour into the park to make the hotel profitable. Plus free advertising.

Road construction would actually be more damaging to the environment because the construction would be spread throughout the park and not centralized to one location like the hotel. Increased vehicle traffic would mean the animals would move further and further away from the trails. Not to mention a particularly rainy or cold season could lead to a big loss in income. I felt the road and trail construction kept the park dependent on government funds whereas the hotel could help the park become self-sustaining.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: trooper10538 and 1 guest